Article

2006-02-28 Fifth Column

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-02-28 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 They seem quite defensive. I wonder why? (he-he)

Posted by Captain America 2006-02-28 00:28|| 2006-02-28 00:28|| Front Page Top

#2 Huh?

Posted by Sherry 2006-02-28 01:00|| 2006-02-28 01:00|| Front Page Top

#3 Okay, the two NY Slimes reporters divulged the NSA program in its 12-16-2005 article.

The Justice Dept is investigating the leak of sensitive information about the program and plans to quiry the "press" (i.e., the Slimes reporters).

It more likely that the Slimes will get more discovery information for their own defense through the Freedom of Information Act than through mounting its own defense of its reporters (particularly since Judith Miller spent some cell time).

Posted by Captain America 2006-02-28 01:13|| 2006-02-28 01:13|| Front Page Top

#4 A couple of minutes of googling would have told the applicants the following -

Because of the sensitivity of NSA's functions and activities, the most often cited exemptions are (b)(1) (national security information) and (b)(3) (exemption by statute). The statutes most often applied to the protection of information are the following:

-- Section 6 of the National Security Agency Act of 1959 (Public Law 86-36, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 402 note), which provides that no law shall be construed to require the disclosure of, inter alia, the functions or activities of NSA;

-- the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 403-3(c)(6), which protects information pertaining to intelligence sources and methods; and

-- 18 U.S.C. Sec. 798, which prohibits the release of classified information concerning communications intelligence and communications security information to unauthorized persons.
http://www.nsa.gov/foia/foia00002.cfm

So by the language of FOIA, the information is not accessible. Of course the printed word means nothing to judges anymore. They just make it up as they go along.

Posted by Glaising Jinter9531 2006-02-28 09:27|| 2006-02-28 09:27|| Front Page Top

#5 Is the New York Times inclined toward suicide? Has it ever occurred to them that New York City is at or certainly near the very top of the target list for a future Jihadi terror squad armed, G-d forbid, one day with a WMD? And should that WMD be a low-yield nuke, and if it is delivered say within a mile of the Grey Lady's building, don't these clowns realize they too will be vaporized along with potentially tens of thousands of New Yorkers? Do they give rat's ass?

Posted by Happy 88mm 2006-02-28 10:21|| http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]">[http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com] 2006-02-28 10:21|| Front Page Top

#6 ~~New York City is at or certainly near the very top of the target list~~
But it would sell a lot of papers. So that's one in the NYT win column.

Posted by ed 2006-02-28 10:29|| 2006-02-28 10:29|| Front Page Top

#7 Yeah, and they're keeping the door open in case the Moslems gain power . . . follow the money.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-28 11:28|| 2006-02-28 11:28|| Front Page Top

#8 Read James Bamford's "The Puzzle Palace", one of the only books ever written about the NSA. Even the NSA's original charter from 1952 remains classified to this day. Someone I knew worked at Cray Supercomputer and maintained that Tom Clancy's scribbling about "rooms full of Crays" was essentially truthful.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-28 12:49|| 2006-02-28 12:49|| Front Page Top

#9 NYT could easily reinstate reporter Jayson Blair. Jayson could safe them a great deal of legal expense by simply writing the documents in question for them.

Posted by Visitor 2006-02-28 14:38|| 2006-02-28 14:38|| Front Page Top

#10 "NYT: Now openly on the other side"

Waddaya mean "now"?

As opposed to the last 50 years?

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-02-28 16:54|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-02-28 16:54|| Front Page Top

#11 about the program of monitoring phone calls without court approval.

we're at war, W has the power and authority. They ARE on the other side.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-02-28 17:44|| 2006-02-28 17:44|| Front Page Top

#12 Key word in that phrase is openly, Barbara. I wouldn't know when to put the start of on the other side with regard to the NYTimes, perhaps sometime not long after the end of WWII, perhaps during that war. But they've never been so blatant about it before. Suing to get all the details, including names of analysts and suspected bad guys? Someone's BDS has taken him over the cliff, and is now beyond syndrome and deep in psychosis territory.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-02-28 20:06|| 2006-02-28 20:06|| Front Page Top

#13 The New York Times: All the news we print in a fit.

Posted by Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-02-28 20:12|| 2006-02-28 20:12|| Front Page Top

#14 Pinchy the acorn did not fall far from the tree - and it was to the Left of the tree.

Posted by .com 2006-02-28 20:13|| 2006-02-28 20:13|| Front Page Top

#15 ...which was already in Left field...

Posted by .com 2006-02-28 20:15|| 2006-02-28 20:15|| Front Page Top

23:55 2b
23:46 Pappy
23:43 2b
23:35 2b
23:28 2b
23:25 2b
23:04 DMFD
23:04 Anonymoose
23:03 Alaska Paul
23:00 DMFD
22:56 DMFD
22:41 N guard
22:34 Listen To Dogs
22:27 Listen To Dogs
22:23 .com
22:23 mom
22:20 phil_b
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:11 Old Patriot
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:08 Hupomoger Clans9827
22:07 C-Low
22:05 .com
22:04 JosephMendiola
Merry-Go-Blog