NY Times & Washington Post knew about secret drone base, kept it quiet for White House...

[posty 2,296]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/06/us-newspapers-accused-complicity-drone

 

US news organisations are facing accusations of complicity after it emerged that they bowed to pressure from the Obama administration not to disclose the existence of a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia despite knowing about it for a year.

 

Amid renewed scrutiny over the Obama administration's secrecy over its targeted killing programme, media analysts and national security experts said the revelation that some newspapers had co-operated over the drone base had reopened the debate over the balance between freedom of information and national security.

 

On Tuesday, following Monday's disclosure by NBC of a leaked Justice Department white paper on the case for its controversial targeted killing programme, the Washington Post revealed it had previously refrained from publishing the base's location at the behest of the Obama administration over national security concerns.

 

The New York Times followed with its own story on the drone programme on Wednesday, and an op-ed explaining why it felt the time to publish was now.

 

One expert described the initial decision not to publish the base's location as "shameful and craven".

 

Dr Jack Lule, a professor of journalism and communication at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, said that the national security implications did not merit holding on to the story.

 

"The decision not to publish is a shameful one. The national security standard has to be very high, perhaps imminent danger," he said. "The fact that we are even having a conversation about whether it was a national security issue should have sent alarm bells off to the editors. I think the real reason was that the administration did not want to embarrass the Saudis – and for the US news media to be complicit in that is craven."

 

The Obama administration has resisted any effort to open up its targeted killing programme to public scrutiny. The White House legal advice on the assassinations program, including the killing of a US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, has been withheld from the public and Congress, despite repeated requests to make it public.

 

The New York Times is attempting to obtain this memo though the courts, and Margaret Sullivan, the Times's public editor, used this argument in her piece on Wednesday, which said that the Times was right, at last, to publish details of the Saudi drone base.

 

However, Lule said that in not publishing the location of the base when it had the information, the newspaper had failed in its responsibility to the public.

 

Lule said: "We have two partners' participation in the secrecy of the drone programme: the government and the news media. If we are looking to open it up to scrutiny, where do we go?"

 

"It happened at the top ranks of the media, too. We look to digital media, but they do not have the contacts and the resources to look at this. They should have been leading the pack in calling for less secrecy. For them to give up that post is terrible."

 

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said the Washington Post had a long history of seeking input from government on stories which they felt may have security implications. She cited a column the Post's former editor Ben Bradlee, written in the 1990s about this issue, which generated a lot of criticism.

 

"The argument was: what is wrong with going to the government to find out the possible impact so that we can make an informed decision? That is the argument they have made in the past."

 

Kirtley said her own view as a lawyer would be: "The default position is to publish."

 

Part of the problem, she said, was that the term "national security" could be used as a cover for embarrassing revelations, or information the government does not want in the public domain.

 

"How to judge national security is the real conundrum. News organisations, as a rule, think about the consequences of their stories. The problem with dealing with national security is that it is so amorphous. Journalists are trained to be sceptical of these types of assertions. The repercussions are not always obvious, compared to, for instance, movement of ground troops in a war zone.

 

"The comments on the Washington Post story reflect that dichotomy."

 

Kirtley said that in such cases it is vital for a news organisation to explain to its readers why the decision was made.

 

"To public perception, it begins to appear that those decisions were made not for national security reasons but to provide cover for the administration. That is the tightrope that news organisations walk in these situations.

 

"The whole brouhaha has become so complex over what the implications are for John Brennan, and whether the Post has done this for political reasons. That is why it's is so important to explain to their readers why a decision was made."

 

While the publication of the white paper itself has brought renewed scrutiny to the Obama administration's insistence on secrecy, Stephen Vladeck, a professor of law at American University who specialises in national security issues, said there was an irony.

 

"We have a Freedom of Information Act. And, unlike Britain, we have no Official Secrets Act. But in the last decade we see less and less release of national security information.

 

"The aftermath of 9/11 has provided a very powerful counter-argument against freedom of information. My suspicion is that, out of western democracies, the US is at the far end of the secrecy spectrum"

 

Vladeck said that the US press, which has been responsible for some of the most important national security stories in recent years, including George W Bush's wire-tapping, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and the existence of the CIA "black site" secret interrogation programme, had shown it could be complicit with the administrations secrecy and pushing against secrecy.

 

"Every institution in this story has a responsibility. Our courts have been increasingly deferential to the government in FOIA actions – for instance, in the OIC memo about Awlaki."

 

Vladeck said that the issue would generate debate but added: "Whether it will generate anything more than debate is up to Congress."

[Lackman 0]

Today's liberal media. Editing videos to false incriminate the innocent, hiding the truth to advance political agendas, less credibility than a Samoan with Skype.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Those fockers would have been singing like songbirds if Bush would have demanded they keep their moufs shut on any story.

[RLLD 3,455]

Secret bases, you don't say. If you have a few hours, do a search on "DUMBS", to help you along.....Deep Underground Military......

[Mungwater 588]

When I was in Macedonia we had some CNN broad, complete with armor on..even though she was in a gym.. Ask us where my battery was located, I told her it was none of her business in a nice way. She replies that she had a right to know, I just told her no again. After she asked about four other people and got nothing, she took her helmet off and stormed out.

 

Some things don't need to be in the press

[Phurfur 70]

Today's liberal media. Editing videos to false incriminate the innocent, hiding the truth to advance political agendas, less credibility than a Samoan with Skype.

 

 

MK=Ultra

[Old School 360]

 

Some things don't need to be in the press

 

I agree. The fact they exist, ok. Their location, not so much.

 

This whole drone killing program is pretty strange.

Killing bad guys? Ok. Good. Fock em.

Killing American citizens? Hmmm.

Killing American citizens posing imminent danger? Maybe.

Killing American citizens, as they sit at a table, eating lunch? Well, if they knew where dood was, why not arrest his ass? Easier to kill him and his American son, and their American friend using 2 drones? Exactly what was the imminent danger during that lunch break?

 

And, who is next? No trial, no indictment, no warrant, just a death sentence. Seriously, where is the line on this?

[nikki2200 4]

When I was in Macedonia we had some CNN broad, complete with armor on..even though she was in a gym.. Ask us where my battery was located, I told her it was none of her business in a nice way. She replies that she had a right to know, I just told her no again. After she asked about four other people and got nothing, she took her helmet off and stormed out.

 

Some things don't need to be in the press

 

Exactly.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

The article says they kept it quiet for national security concerns. If that's true, I really don't see the problem. I'm a big fan of transparency but the reality is that pretty much everything is kept from us when it comes to matters of war and espionage.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I agree. The fact they exist, ok. Their location, not so much.

 

This whole drone killing program is pretty strange.

Killing bad guys? Ok. Good. Fock em.

Killing American citizens? Hmmm.

Killing American citizens posing imminent danger? Maybe.

Killing American citizens, as they sit at a table, eating lunch? Well, if they knew where dood was, why not arrest his ass? Easier to kill him and his American son, and their American friend using 2 drones? Exactly what was the imminent danger during that lunch break?

 

And, who is next? No trial, no indictment, no warrant, just a death sentence. Seriously, where is the line on this?

 

Agreed. It's very dangerous and I do not support it. I hope something comes of these revelations and the White House is forced to back away from the practice.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The article says they kept it quiet for national security concerns. If that's true, I really don't see the problem. I'm a big fan of transparency but the reality is that pretty much everything is kept from us when it comes to matters of war and espionage.

Too bad they didn't do the same under Bush. Instead, they exposed secret programs to track the money Al Qeada was using. The NYTs gave a big "Heads Up" to the enemy on how to avoid getting caught by this program.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Too bad they didn't do the same under Bush. Instead, they exposed secret programs to track the money Al Qeada was using. The NYTs gave a big "Heads Up" to the enemy on how to avoid getting caught by this program.

 

It's always an issue. How do you balance the people's right to know against the government's need to secure its peoples?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's always an issue. How do you balance the people's right to know against the government's need to secure its peoples?

Apparently, the NYTs thinks the people (and our enemies) have a right to know when a Rep is in office, and thinks it needs to keep Govt secrets when a Dem is in office.

[DankNuggs 305]

The hypocracy is DEAFENING on this. Absolutely insane how lefties react to bush and this... Truly shows people are sheep.

[RLLD 3,455]

The article says they kept it quiet for national security concerns. If that's true, I really don't see the problem. I'm a big fan of transparency but the reality is that pretty much everything is kept from us when it comes to matters of war and espionage.

 

Things also kept quiet under the guise of national security are the use of Kermit Roosevelt to overthrow the democratically elected president of Iran, and replace him with the Shah, and under whom human rights violations were brought to horrific levels; and ultimately now bringing us a nation that hates us. And then did the same thing in Guatelmala, and then in Chile....Argentina......Grenada.....on and on....under the guise of "national security" our government has a long history of destroying democracies to support the plutocracy.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Things also kept quiet under the guise of national security are the use of Kermit Roosevelt to overthrow the democratically elected president of Iran, and replace him with the Shah, and under whom human rights violations were brought to horrific levels; and ultimately now bringing us a nation that hates us. And then did the same thing in Guatelmala, and then in Chile....Argentina......Grenada.....on and on....under the guise of "national security" our government has a long history of destroying democracies to support the plutocracy.

 

Very true. It's a problem for sure: when does the government truly have a national security interest and when are they faking it? And it's not even that easy, because often people THINK there's a national security interest where there isn't.

 

Take the bombing of Cambodia at the end of Vietnam. I'm sure Nixon really thought that was the right thing to do for America's security interests, but now we know that it was an abominable act undertaken for all the wrong reasons.

[RLLD 3,455]

Very true. It's a problem for sure: when does the government truly have a national security interest and when are they faking it? And it's not even that easy, because often people THINK there's a national security interest where there isn't.

 

Take the bombing of Cambodia at the end of Vietnam. I'm sure Nixon really thought that was the right thing to do for America's security interests, but now we know that it was an abominable act undertaken for all the wrong reasons.

 

Our history, most notably after WWII, is rife with year after year of horrible acts of human rights violations. I can certainly understand why we are so widely despised. From Congo to Central America to even Indonesia, we have destroyed every attempt at democracy and free market, over and over, and yet our government continues to pretend that they act out of hope for social and economic freedom??? It's sickening.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Apparently, the NYTs thinks the people (and our enemies) have a right to know when a Rep is in office, and thinks it needs to keep Govt secrets when a Dem is in office.

 

I highly doubt it's that simple.

 

Let me ask you this: if the media is covering things up because there's a Dem in office, then why reveal the drone program and the authorization to kill American citizens at all?

 

And why didn't Fox News etc. reveal this info? Surely they aren't in the business of protecting Dems.

[DankNuggs 305]

Very true. It's a problem for sure: when does the government truly have a national security interest and when are they faking it? And it's not even that easy, because often people THINK there's a national security interest where there isn't.

 

Take the bombing of Cambodia at the end of Vietnam. I'm sure Nixon really thought that was the right thing to do for America's security interests, but now we know that it was an abominable act undertaken for all the wrong reasons.

Yep, the Benghazi protest story was defended by the knuckleheads as protecting the truth and national security.. now we find out it was just fraud and petty politics during an election season.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Our history, most notably after WWII, is rife with year after year of horrible acts of human rights violations. I can certainly understand why we are so widely despised. From Congo to Central America to even Indonesia, we have destroyed every attempt at democracy and free market, over and over, and yet our government continues to pretend that they act out of hope for social and economic freedom??? It's sickening.

 

I don't go for the "blame America first" thing. We've done some bad things, but we've done some good too. All in all is the world better off because of America? Are they better off than the alternative of some other, possibly more malignant power stepping in?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

The hypocracy is DEAFENING on this. Absolutely insane how lefties react to bush and this... Truly shows people are sheep.

 

Honestly, I don't know what to think here. I guess...

 

1. I am all for using drones. It saves American lives.

 

2.I am vehemently opposed to killing American citizens with no due process. There at least needs to be a hearing, with notice provided, by newspaper if no other way.

 

3. The media should report things fairly, regardless of who is in office, and check their own ideology at the door.

 

That said... if the media had published the location of this base, they should have been tried for treason.

 

Now as to the existence of the base... I mean we all knew the drones were coming from somewhere, right?

 

To me, the main alarming thing here is that the military is so incompetent, they can't hide a secret base from the Washington post or new York Times.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

And why didn't Fox News etc. reveal this info? Surely they aren't in the business of protecting Dems.

I didn't see where it said the info was leaked to Fox News.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Yep, the Benghazi protest story was defended by the knuckleheads as protecting the truth and national security.. now we find out it was just fraud and petty politics during an election season.

 

You guys were the ones playing politics with Benghazi. The cover story was meant to hide that it was a CIA operation that got attacked rather than a diplomatic envoy. Other countries don't like it when it's revealed that we sometimes use the State Department as a front for espionage activities.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I didn't see where it said the info was leaked to Fox News.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You guys were the ones playing politics with Benghazi. The cover story was meant to hide that it was a CIA operation that got attacked rather than a diplomatic envoy. Other countries don't like it when it's revealed that we sometimes use the State Department as a front for espionage activities.

 

I missed this being revealed. You have a source for this?

[RLLD 3,455]

I don't go for the "blame America first" thing. We've done some bad things, but we've done some good too. All in all is the world better off because of America? Are they better off than the alternative of some other, possibly more malignant power stepping in?

 

As a rule, no they are not.

 

I think if you were to speak to a large population of Chile for example, about how well things were going before the US installed Pinochet, they would argue that things were much better before the US was involved.

 

In every single instance, what you see is the degradation of social, economic and human rights. Any nations that attempted to install social and economic power to the people instead of focusing it on an elite few was invaded or the head of the nation was eliminated.

 

You see it time and again, it can be traced from Iran to Guatemala to Congo, Indonesia, Chile, Panama, Argentina on and on and on.....the examples are stunningly plentiful. If you look at who has benefited in each instance it was not the people, but a select few. Milton Freidman and the Chicago Boys introduced the notion of "shock crises" to elicit change.

 

The US government is not "market fundamentalists" they are bullet fundamentalists. Remember Grenada? What threat did Grenada pose? None, aside from the simple fact that they accepted aide from anyone who might offer it, and our government did not like that.

 

In Argentina for instance, after the US managed the ouster of the democratically elected government, installing something that would support the plutocracy, what then transpired was decades of economic loss where the unemployment rate went from 3% in 1980 to 20% in 2001 and then the number of people in extreme poverty rose from 200,000 to 5,000,000......

 

So who is benefiting, a select few , a trend now amplifying even within our own borders now.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I missed this being revealed. You have a source for this?

 

Google it, I'm on my phone. You will be able to find it quite easily from many mainstream sources.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The SEALS were working for the CIA. However, they were not at the location being attacked. They had to ignore orders from DC to not render aid, and travel to the location of the attack. So, your claim it was an attack on a CIA operation and not on a Diplomatic Envoy is BS.

 

Also, if we had CIA operations ongoing in Libya and the best cover story this administration could come up with was that cockamamie Youtube story, then these clowns are more inept than anyone can imagine. It's one thing to get caught off guard and try to pass off such a BS story, but to know you have covert actions going on and you have no credible cover story?

 

Really? That's sad a pathetic.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

The CIA is the one that gave Rice the "cockamamie" story that it wasn't a terrorist attack. Look it up.

[Secret Asian Man 26]

Killing American citizens, as they sit at a table, eating lunch? Well, if they knew where dood was, why not arrest his ass? Easier to kill him and his American son, and their American friend using 2 drones? Exactly what was the imminent danger during that lunch break?

 

They have 44 ounce Coke.

[Phurfur 70]

The CIA is the one that gave Rice the "cockamamie" story that it wasn't a terrorist attack. Look it up.

 

Link?

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Link?

 

Look it up fool, I'm on my phone.

[Phurfur 70]

Look it up fool, I'm on my phone.

 

and we have another link Worms cannot produce.

 

I am still waiting on

 

The Numbers that say almost all government corruption is in the military

and

that ALL hamburgers are bad for you.

 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

and we have another link Worms cannot produce.

 

I am still waiting on

 

The Numbers that say almost all government corruption is in the military

and

that ALL hamburgers are bad for you.

 

 

 

Can't you convince one of the other residents to play checkers with you or something?

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Things also kept quiet under the guise of national security are the use of Kermit Roosevelt to overthrow the democratically elected president of Iran, and replace him with the Shah

Hey, whats more important: allowing another country to have a democratically elected leader or protecting BP's control over that nation's oil?

 

"Nation building" ftw!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The CIA is the one that gave Rice the "cockamamie" story that it wasn't a terrorist attack. Look it up.

Let's try something novel.

 

How about you actually back up one of your claims for once instead of relying on "you look it up".

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Look it up fool, I'm on my phone.

Hopefully someday your 'legal' career will blossom into something successful enough for you to afford a more sophisticated device for navigating the innerwebs.

 

 

Something like one of those newfangled compooters I hear so much about.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Let's try something novel.

 

How about you actually back up one of your claims for once instead of relying on "you look it up".

 

 

Since you can't manage to pull off a Google search, I got on my computer just for you:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-for-susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/

 

CIA talking points for Susan Rice called Benghazi attack "spontaneously inspired" by protests

 

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

 

Rice, who was considered a likely nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, has been attacked by Republican lawmakers for saying on "Face the Nation" (video) on Sept. 16 that all indications were the attack "began spontaneously" - suggesting it likely sprang from a protest against an anti-Muslim video found on the Internet. Protests of that nature had been seen in other Muslim nations in the days and weeks before the Benghazi attack.

 

The CIA's talking points read as follows:

 

- "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

 

- This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

 

- The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens."

 

 

So there we go. What's your play now? Change the subject? Proclaim that you were just trying to get me to "fetch" the link?

[BunnysBastatrds 1,920]

Exactly.

 

 

abu ghraib and some doosh bag soldier pissing on the Koran didn't need to be reported on either but that didn't stop the NYT from postingd stories that put soldiers lives at risk. or tthe secret CIA facilities overseas that interogated the biggset threats to America in Saudi. It's laughable that some think that the press is doing their job fairly.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Since you can't manage to pull off a Google search, I got on my computer just for you:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-for-susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/

 

 

 

 

So there we go. What's your play now? Change the subject? Proclaim that you were just trying to get me to "fetch" the link?

 

 

Here's my play: Where in the talking points does it say anything about a youtube video, Matlock? That came from someplace else.

 

Keep trying.

 

 

- "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.