1. The Administration of Crime has censored an editorial slated to be published in the NYT. It contained no classified information. Everything objected to had been already published and was in the public domain.

2. The NYT capitulated to this outrage. They have disgraced themselves again by doing the bidding of the war criminals.

"Liberal MSM", my foot.

[this link is to the preamble to the editorial. Once you visit it, you will find a link the the redacted version.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/op...html?th&emc=th

Something smells here. Why would the NYT submit anything to be checked by the government? It's just not logical. The NYT lives on "free press", and is certainly not a friend to this Administration. They have plenty of lawyers ready to defend their right of free press.

I guess if your read the article, you must conclude as you did, that this was blatantly censorious. But, usually, if a newspaper cries foul then I can see how something might happen. But in this case, it is simply not logical that the NYT would succumb to the petty wishes of some government bureaucracy.

The US has many problems, but government crackdown of freedom of speech has not reached this point. I would think soldiers must be stationed inside the NYT building before the newspaper would give in this way.

__________________
Hobo
Charter member of 'Republicans Who Hate Bush" Club

[quote]The Times didn't submit it, the authors did. One is a recent-now-former CIA officials and the other a career foreign service officer. They are obliged, by contract, to submit to their former employer before any publication.
I owe readers an apology. I was over-hasty in my assignments of blame. The NYT didn't have a chance to publish it because, I must assume, they never got to see the original. The Bush the Lame administration stopped it.
From the preamble:

This is why I don't get immediately outraged when classified information is leaked. Because much information has no business being classified in the first place.

This appears to be an excellent example of the White House using secrecy laws merely to protect itself from embarassment.

__________________
Man up.

But, of course, the same rule doesn't apply to Hillbilly and Bergler destroying classified government documents.

(*)(*)(*)(*), I get dizzy trying to follow Raytri's thinking.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

The rules apply to everyone, Barnacle. Those of us who hold morality to be important call this situation "law."

I understand now...maybe I read the link too fast to understand. I guess if you sell your sole to the devil, you must give the devil his due. After reading Woodward's "State of Denial", I don't think I am missing out on much information. Still, when the military uses its secrecy designations simply to try and keep embarrassing information from the public, the whole foundations of a democratic government are shaken.

__________________
Hobo
Charter member of 'Republicans Who Hate Bush" Club

What are you talking about? Please point to where I said it was okay for Berger to steal or destroy documents.

__________________
Man up.

This is why I don't get immediately outraged when classified information is leaked. Because much information has no business being classified in the first place.

This appears to be an excellent example of the White House using secrecy laws merely to protect itself from embarassment.

And Bergler wasn't trying to protect Hillbilly from embarassment?

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

The short answer is "it doesn't appear so", because the documents he took were Archive-made *printouts* of archived emails, plus a fax copy of another document.

But that's irrelevant. Even if he was trying to cover up an embarassment, Berger wasn't doing it by improperly classifying documents. He was doing it by *stealing* classified documents. Which is a crime, for which he was, quite rightly, punished.

IOW, with Berger I'm giving the Clinton bashers the benefit of the doubt that the document in question -- the after-action review of the millennium plot -- was properly classified. If you want to argue that it wasn't (in order, I suppose, to accuse Clinton of improperly classifying it), fine. But that makes Berger's actions even less noteworthy.

__________________
Man up.