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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
RonB
Re: (Score:3, 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: (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: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."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you implying that they should censor conclusions that people draw out of public information?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, sorry, forgot what century it was. all that posse comitatus, ex post facto, habeas corpus & prior restraint crap is Sooooo 20th century!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
... because there have not been crimes committed in the USA related to Iran and terrorism.
I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but yours fails the logic test. One only has to consider that at the current time there is an ongoing terror plot by Iran being conducted entirely within the United States. You only consider past tense, not present in your claim. Being entirely within the US the case is no longer international, despite the fact that the players are international, and would be handled by the FBI, not the CIA. Under your own description this would fall under an open investigation for th
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:5, Informative)
How are the voters guaranteed that it really is a matter of national security, and not a political matter, as is being alleged here.
Or do you have some fundamental objection to the rule of law [wikipedia.org] that you would like to elaborate on?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean kinda like Cliff Baxter [wsws.org], the Enron guy who agreed to talk not only about Lay and Skilling, but also about the private "consultations" between Enron and Dick Cheney?
Funny how someone can commit "suicide" by shooting themself in the head from "two to three feet away". That takes some serious talent.
But hey, we've forgotten all about that little blemish. Why squabble over illegal manipulation of the energy market when we have a WAR on TERRORISM to fight, in a completely unrelated country formerly run by a secular semi-democratically-elected leader, that coincidentally happens to contain the second largest oil reserves on the planet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Wagner said that murder could not be ruled out, despite the evidence suggesting that the shooting was a suicide."
Mishandling of a case doth not beget governmental conspiracy murder.
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:4, Funny)
In the US, your wife ends up on YouTube dancing naked and drunk with another man.
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:5, Funny)
My apologies- you had it right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That the white house is led by incompetents is hardly a government secret.
secrets (Score:2)
Re:Nothing unusual or unconstitutional here (Score:5, Informative)
1. He does *NOT* work for the government anymore.
2. All information in his article is public knowledge combined from a variety of sources who have made public statements to the same effect.
3. The CIA reviewed the document and declared that it contained no sensitive information.
4. This isn't this characters first time doing this.. He's cleared some 30 different articles with the CIA and has not once including and until now had any issues.
Re: (Score:2)
2. All information in his article is public knowledge combined from a variety of sources who have made public statements to the same effect.
3. The CIA reviewed the document and declared that it contained no sensitive information.
4. This isn't this characters first time doing this.. He's cleared some 30 different articles with the CIA and has not once including and until now had any issues.
And also:
5. xxxx xxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xx xx
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you defending a rule (uncited) that lets a White House squash the free speech/press of the authors and the NYT, even though the article contains no secrets, as proven by the CIA review clearance? In what is deductively certain to be a purely political move by Bush/Cheney, not to have public info endorsed in the NYT by a credible authority?
Rights cannot be surrendered. People can waive protections of them, but the rights to free speech and the press are ina
Re: (Score:2)
When these two went to work at the White House they would have signed a document doing exactly that. And please, let's not pretend that this arrangement began with this White House.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you arguing whether Bush/Cheney are effective at infringing free speech/press, or whether it's right? And who said this is new? After all, Cheney worked for Nixon, and many of Bush's brains worked for Bush Sr and Reagan.
So let's not pretend that we're talking about any of the Republican fallacies you're rolling out. Let's talk about how Bush/Cheney are stomping on free speech/press to avoid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't Leverett's employment (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Leverett is now at the New America Foundation, and left the CIA some time ago. Since he *used to* work at the CIA, the article had to be reviewed by the CIA. The CIA approved it. What is disconcerting in this instance is that the White House injected itself into the secrets review process. This raises flags because if the White House an override the CIA during the secrets review process, it could easily manipulate that ability for domestic political ends. Want to keep the discussion on Iran policy from going in a certain direction? Want to blunt an attack by a knowledgeable ex-CIA agent? Control the secrets review process.
FROM Spacetimecurves Blog: Flynt Leverett Talks (Score:4, Informative)
He basically tells C-Span what Dear Leader didn't want published in the New York Times.
Apparently the CIA had okayed it, but Bu$hCo didn't want that sucker out.
This boils down to
- the previous reports of Iran offering to negotiate a comprehensive deal for peace in the Middle East, and,
- The dialog that Iran had with the USA right after 9-11 and the lead up to Afghanistan.
Remember, the Iranians are Shiite, the Taliban are Wahhabi Sunni. Basically the Iranians don't like them, either.The conclusions of the Op-Ed were that we're being lied to in order for Dear Leader and Big Time Dick to get this war on again with Iran.
On You Tube here [youtube.com]. [Thanks to Uncle $cam [moonofalabama.org]]
Billmon suggests the Cheneyburton Corporation wants Total War [billmon.org] in Iraq. Read what Bernhard's barflies think about that here [moonofalabama.org]. This is doubtless the reason the Joint Chiefs are pissed [blogspot.com]: when you go to War, you need an objective endpoint, and a pogrom is not an endpoint.
9:07 PM [blogspot.com]
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Mod parent up! (It's a video) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That hasn't stopped them from supporting Hamas, which is also a Sunni organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Hamas doesn't share a border, with Iran and are antagonists to Israel - which is a barrier to Iran's regional aspirations.
public information (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
What do you mean, "Kind of" ?
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of "Constitution" do you have, that doesn't have a First Amendment? You praying for some kind of corporate anarchy?
Re: (Score:2)
"I would have been really surprised if the government would have allowed a critical article co-written by a government official to be published."
The government is not and should not be of one opinion, handed down from one branch. If anything, the government should be a free exchange of ideas where policies are rigorously and openly debated. That's what I'd expect from a dictatorship, not my country.
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?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Um, let me think long and hard about this.......yes.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. Their usual technique is to assassinate the character of anyone who criticizes them, substituting purely ad hominem arguments -- false ones -- for any reasoned defense of their policies (c.f. Joseph Wilson). In this case, they would be attacking someone they themselves appointed to the government. That would make them look bad (as though their complete diplomatic, military and administrative fecklessness
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Boy, what newspapers have you been reading?
"Or is the "false ad hominem attack" that his wife worked for the CIA?"
No. The fallacious ad-hominem attack was that his wife had used her CIA connections to arrange a nice little junket for her husband. This was later found to be untrue (his wife didn't arrange it, and Joe Wilson was perfectly qualified to undertake the duty), but that got rather lost in the whole "Holy fuck, the
Re:former employee of the NSC .. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Someone in the White House obviously did. Someone who decided to override the CIA.
According to the analysis of several sources, the redacted portions of the article probably deal with several specific actions and policies of the Bush administration, which are public knowledge, that have basically undermined our chances for success in Afghanistan by alienating coopoerating Arab states, particularly Iran.
The Bush administration does not want the public to know this. Why not? Because the Bush administration now, just as it has all along, wants to villainize Iran in order to prepare the American people for bombing Iran.
There are many people with high level connections making the lecture and talk show circuits who consider it a foregone conclusion that the Bush will order the bombing of Iran before he leaves office.
I think the administration sees in Iran a chance to get the American people on board. Just like our public institutions have managed to sustain the impression of WWII as "the good war", where we were fighting real evil, the administration sees the chance to frame bombing Iran as "the good war" of Bush. Iran is making it very easy for them. What with their president saying that Israel should be wiped off the map.
All signs indicate we are on our way to bombing Iran. We have all the telltale signs we saw in 2001-2002. We have villainized their government. We are starting a military buildup. We are calling for and passing UN resolutions demanding cooperation. And just as it was clear that Saddam was not willing - or perhaps could not if he wanted to - satisfy the U.S.'s demands, it seems clear that Iran will not cease uranium enrichment, which, by international treaty, it is permitted to do.
The very sad thing is that, it seems that whether we know about it or not, there is nothing we the people can do to stop this administration from going to war against Iran if they are determined to do so. It shouldn't be this way.
I hope that "Never Forget" for this and future generations will come to apply to the Bush administration as much as it applies to 9/11. Never Forget how not recounting ballots in a few Florida counties in one election, so dramatically changed the country and our standing in the world. We are always one election away from tyranny. We have come dangerously close.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We're a few years away from "instantaneous classification". Watch for it about 2 presidents from now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are bound by law not to disclose classified information, so if they violate it, they can prosecute them, but noone should censor them!
That's just silly. If, say, someone had access to the Witness Protection Program files and decided to publish a list of names and addresses (from memory), we should just let them and slap him on the wrist later?
Free speech is not unlimited, nor should it be.
Re: (Score:2)
With the Pentagon Papers, the Supreme Court clearly said that any information that is of genuine news value can be published, regardless of what government programs or policies it hurts. Protecting government programs and opinions is not, in and of its
Leverett did sign an agreement (Score:2)
another misstep (Score:5, Interesting)
For the first time in a while I'm looking forward to the next year's politics... Not because "my team" is winning (my team doesn't seem to exist and if they did they wouldn't get on any ballot), but because it's just going to be such a clusterfuck... Watching that three ring circus known as the Democratic party try to joust its razor thin margin against this newly politically tonedeaf lame duck administration, while the GOP try to figure out how to put solid distance between themselves and the ever less popular Bush&Co while holding onto all those endearing litte traits that keep the various "bases" happy...
let it run, then prosecute the offender (Score:3, Interesting)
1) NY Times runs the article
2) Attorney General investigates to see if any laws or contracts were broken.
3) Attorney General prosecutes or sues co-author for breaking law or breaking contract. Use FISA or other closed-court hearings if necessary to protect state secrets.
4) Message is sent to others: Don't do what he did.
5) Citizens see article and see the author is being sued or prosecuted, and make up their own mind at the polls in '08.
6) Next president considers Presidential Pa
Re: (Score:2)
It's surprising that the White House would do something this dumb. Karl Rove is usually brighter than that.
This just about guarantees that Congress will look into the matter. Flynt Leverett will probably be testifying before Congress. With TV coverage of exactly what the Bush Administration tried to cover up.
I'm beginning to get the feeling we may be headed for an impeachment. One with bipartisan support. One more Katrina-sized mistake out of the White House and Bush is toast.
What I think you meant to say... (Score:2)
What I think you are referring to here is the case of the New York Time eventually revealing the administration's unconstitutional abuse of power and the president's blatant refusal to uphold his oath of office (though that still could mean you were thinking about the presidentially authorized torture in the secret prisons, unlaw
Darn it. (Score:3, Funny)
<"span style="color:black;background:black;">xxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx x</span"&>"
On the other hand, looking at the source is always fun.
<!--Kim was here:
{} -->
Who is Kim? (Score:2)
<!--Kim was here:
{} -->
I noticed the Kim comment, too. So who is this person? Somebody at NYT, or with Bush&Co, or a CIA agent??
There is a story within a story here, and I for one would like to hear it!
Re: (Score:2)
He is leading us on. In a week or so he'll leave yet another tidbit in the next redacted, non confidential, not-so-secret NYT article.
Soon we will have enough clues to decide who Kim really is. Then the NYT will sneak some adverts in the source code (did you notice the one at the bottom of the page?)
Poof. Viral marketing for geeks and bored web page
Freedom of Expression (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx ?! (Score:3, Interesting)
The last censored word in that strip could very well be "to", as in "to set the stage".
By the way, my title is "Are you fucking kidding me ?!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who shot who in the what now? (Score:2, Offtopic)
CmdrTaco should make a new category called "Somebody's Rights Somewhere", just for this sort of article.
Re: (Score:2)
The New America (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be under the assumption that the people who post here are true americans who support the american values.
It has to be concluded that slashdot is full of Al-Quaeda operatives, chinese government officials and iraqi terrorists, therefor the Bush administration feels morally justified in dumping 500 tons of nerve gas on the internets users. No true american hates freedom, so they must be terrgrorist, after all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a culture war in the US that is actually a microcosm of the al-quida-versus-civalization battle. Religious fanatics beleive
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You actually believe that no other country is allowed to criticise their own government? Wow. Go explore the rest of the world and realize that the US is really nothing special when it comes to "freedom". By no means the worst, for sure, but certainly not the "most free place on earth".
Re: (Score:2)
According to Reports Without Borders, the USA has fallen to 53rd [rsf.org] (from 16th in 2002) in terms of the freedom of the press.
That is one hell of a long way from most free place on the Earth.
Security Policy (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a Decensored Version (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe... (Score:3, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Americans" can't help it, since their country doesn't have a real name - they have to steal it from somewhere else. "The Republic of the United States of America" turns out to be too much of a mouthful.
Re: (Score:2)
When he went off about Iran wanting nuclear energy "for peaceful purposes" I quit reading. Anyone who believes Ahmadinejad, after listening/reading just one of his speeches, is hardly one whose opinion I would ever care about.
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: (Score:2)
There is one catch: the US Gov't is not prohibited from injecting propaganda (aka lies) into foreign news sources.
They were doing this heavily pre & post Iraq invasion, but got pulled up short when their actions were reviewed. Basically, the review process showed that the propaganda was filtering back into US media outlets. This forced
Re: (Score:2)
And nevermind the fact that they just make things up. Rather Gate, the recent Jamil Huissen problem (does he exist? doesn't he? Shouldn't that be simple?), AFP rank amatuer photo editing, etc, etc.
For trustworthy news, we now have to go to foreign news media
Bwah ha ha. That's cute. The 'news' industry is shit worldwide for a great variety of reasons, very few of them having to do with Bush and Co. Your fawning xen
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Propaganda- media efforts to garner and maintain support for any serious national undertaking- is absolutely vital to an endevour's success. We seem to have forgotten this and yielded the propoganda floor largely to the islamists we're fighting.
I certainly don't expect you to agree that we should be making much more
Re:The real problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The NYT doesn't have to say a thing, the current bogus Bush regime is damaging the USA all by itself.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't seriously be suggesting that pointing out that our government was doing blatantly evil things and completely mishandling prisoners is analogous to leaking critical wartime intelligence, are you? Here's the difference: I *want* my government to break the enemy's codes and keep the fact that they've done it a secret. I *don't* want my gover
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm grateful that the Times is pushing for an approach to foreign policy that would actually make America safer and more secure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)