PowerPointless
A clandestine program to track terrorist communications into the United States splashes across the pages of the New York Times, and the government does nothing in response. A top secret program is leaked in the same paper revealing how terrorist funding is monitored, and again, the leaker goes free.
Today, the leak of a minor but still classified report, including a PowerPoint slide, has the Pentagon wanting to drop the hammer:News flash to the Pentagon: This is kinda like letting someone break into your house, steal your valuables and rough up your family, only to get pissed off when they trample on the grass while leaving. If the government wants to start nailing those who leak classified information during a time of war, they should start with the most important cases, not much less important ones such as this.
The Pentagon is looking into how classified information indicating Iraq is moving closer to chaos wound up on the front page of Wednesday's New York Times, and is not ruling out an investigation that could lead to criminal charges. A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for operations in Iraq, confirmed to FOX News that a chart published in The Times is a real reflection of the thinking of military intelligence on the situation in Iraq as of Oct. 18, adding that an effort is underway to find out who leaked the chart and if the breach of operational security constitutes a crime. The published report includes a classified one-page slide show from an Oct. 18 military briefing. The slide show is titled: "Iraq: Indications and Warnings of Civil Conflict," and shows spiraling violence in Iraq and a worsening position for American efforts. Based on the slide show, Iraq is moving sharply away from "peace," designated in green on the left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the red-zoned right side of the spectrum, marked "chaos."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:42 PM
Comments
1
The first two, NSA and SWIFT, weren't DOD back yard. The military has fewer political concerns and less wiggle room on classified material. Too bad NSA and Justice aren't the same way.
Posted by: Paul at November 02, 2006 12:22 AM (HMgsG)
Posted by: monkyboy at November 02, 2006 04:36 AM (unUeA)
3
The so-called "state of Iraq" put forward by the media couldn't be a secret because it's a farrago of lies, apelad.
Posted by: Robert Speirs at November 02, 2006 09:30 AM (D1aQ7)
4
Perhaps the reason that they got so upset about this one, is that this is an actual transfer of documents. Since supposedly most of the "facts" in the other story's were false, and only transfered based on verbal recollection of 2 very complicated programs, whereas this is a clear reproduction (which there is no doubt that it is illegal to publish) of a classified document that the times has no right to have, they know they have no right to have it, because it clearly says "classified" and they published it, even though they knew that it is illegal for them to publish it.
Thats why they are hammering down on this one, because all of the guilt is in your face with just one printed word "classified"
The other stories were rumors based on unnamed reliable sources that didn't include the exchange of classified documentation.
Thats why they are hammering down on this one, because all of the guilt is in your face with just one printed word "classified"
The other stories were rumors based on unnamed reliable sources that didn't include the exchange of classified documentation.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at November 02, 2006 10:04 AM (QTv8u)
5
Uhhh, Robert? If it's all media-generated lies, then why does the classified military appraisal _agree_?
Posted by: legion at November 02, 2006 10:25 AM (3eWKF)
6
The appraisal doesn't say that legion. Gateway has a comparisson.
There is only one "red caution" statement and that is about the use of violence in sectarian conflict, well, duh. everything else is median or better.
What you are saying is what was reported, and what was reported is inaccurate. The prolly wrote the headline before they got the document, hell they prolly wrote the headline before the war.
There is only one "red caution" statement and that is about the use of violence in sectarian conflict, well, duh. everything else is median or better.
What you are saying is what was reported, and what was reported is inaccurate. The prolly wrote the headline before they got the document, hell they prolly wrote the headline before the war.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at November 02, 2006 10:45 AM (QTv8u)
7
Wickedpinto, I think you are absolutely correct. The transfer of an actual "classified" document did indeed push the DOD "over the edge". It was most likely the "straw that broke the camel's back". It was bad enough when the NYSlimes printed classified information regarding our counterterrorism programs, but much, much worse when they reduced themselves to printing actual documents. I sincerely hope the DOD is serious enough that the guilty party finds himself/herself in court facing some very serious charges.
Posted by: singfreedom at November 06, 2006 02:43 AM (ZQlA0)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0088 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0071 seconds, 15 records returned.
Page size 8 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.