Dilpazier Aslam and The Guardian
You Make the Call! There's evidence for both positions. But either way, it's disgraceful.
THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED — AND WILL BE!
About all that's left of the union movement today is public sector unions, some big old companies on the edge of bankruptcy, and work that employs mostly illegal aliens. As it is, I think the union movement is going to just keep withering away. And I don't like that. Unions served a purpose, and someday we'll need them again.
I would like to see you expand on the Unions could be useful again sometime theme. Having killed all the for profit companies where they are entrenched, their only base is government - unfortunately the Japanese are not willing to compete in government services. Even the airlines - many of which are employee-owned are dying because of labor costs.
the New York Times Magazine, which regularly goes beyond using standard news pictures and portraits by using montages, digital manipulation and staged photographs to grab readers' attention or capture a mood that helps buttress an article.
The initial idea was to photograph the implements of torture for the cover article.
The initial idea was to photograph the implements of torture for the cover article, Ms. Ryan recalled. But there was concern that readers wouldn't understand the “still life” photographs of handcuffs, for instance. “We decided the cuffs had to go on a hand,” she said. It was decided that the hood needed to go on the head of a real person, she said, and a special effort was made to get the kind of sandbag actually used in interrogation. The pose for the water torture picture was based on a Vietnam-era news photograph, according to Ms. Ryan.
any image that doesn't depict reality should be explained, “ if the slightest doubt is possible.“
the Central Intelligence Agency's covert air operations for transporting suspected terroristswhich appeared on Page 1 on May 31st, 2005. The column named the charter airline company the CIA uses when it transports prisoners, had pictures of planes with tale numbers visible and quite a lot of information that would make it easy to spot CIA operations. There was a great deal of criticism:
The generally strident e-mail messages demanded to know why The Times had decided to publish information that the readers believe will aid terrorists and make life in the United States less safe for everyone -- especially the people carrying out the operation. Most of them didn't seem to be aware that the once-secret air operations had been mentioned in earlier articles and broadcasts elsewhere.
Your criticism of our article on C.I.A. air operations is a thoughtful one.
Writing about secret intelligence operations is always a balancing act, and reasonable people can draw the line in different places as to how much the citizens who pay for the intelligence agencies should be told about what those agencies are doing.
The C.I.A.'s practice of rendition has come to light almost exclusively through analysis of the agency's air operations, starting with plane-spotting hobbyists who routinely post airplane tail numbers and photos on the Web. Media coverage of those rendition cases in many countries has started an important debate about the wisdom and competence of the agency in carrying them out. But no such debate could take place if the press did not aggressively seek to find out what the agency is doing and inform the public about it.
Perhaps it's the result of my having worked as a correspondent in the Soviet Union for a few years, but I think there's a strong case that excessive government secrecy leads to waste and abuse, and that an aggressive press improves the effectiveness of intelligence agencies in the long run.
In this case, if reporters using public information can penetrate these air operations, I suspect foreign intelligence services, or Al Qaeda operatives, would have little difficulty doing so.
Our story was based on information from public F.A.A. and corporate records and F.A.A. flight plan data available to all from commercial vendors. Before our story was published, the tail numbers, and photographs, of several of the rendition planes could be found easily via a Google search on the Web.
In addition, a summary of the planned story was provided to the C.I.A. several days prior to publication, and no request was made to withhold any of its contents.
I am not reassured, as you are, by the lack of a C.I.A. response to your summary. How much detail (not how often) has The Times deleted from your stories on sensitive intelligence matters at the request of the intelligence community since 9/11? Is it 1 percent? Could it be as high as 5 percent? Has it occurred to The New York Times that you might no longer be considered a responsible interlocutor? Commenting on a summary from your reporter carries a high risk of further erosion of C.I.A. sources and methods. It is another one of those national security judgment calls. It should give you pause, not reason for justification, that C.I.A. chose silence.
. . . Mr. Libby made it clear that Vice President Cheney did not send Mr. Wilson to Africa, a notion some said Mr. Wilson had suggested in his [July 6th, 2003] article.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. . . . The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
In Mr. Wilson's article, he recounted a mission he undertook to Niger in 2002 seeking information about a purported effort by President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to acquire uranium there, his conclusion that the effort had not occurred and the filing of his report.
The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002. . . .
The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki . . . [was asked to] meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
When the former ambassador [Wilson] spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO [Directorate of Operations] intelligence report . . . in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings . . . as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge [sic] nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.
[The CIA's reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
. . . I hope to raise the blinds at The Times in some new ways to allow readers to get a clearer view inside the newsroom process. Greater transparency, I believe, can help you as readers better understand the news judgments that shape each day's paper -- and hold The Times's news staff more accountable.
In the months ahead, there are three new approaches to transparency that I'm especially keen to try in this space: (1) publishing stimulating and thoughtful e-mail messages and letters from readers -- with responses from the editors and reporters involved; (2) presenting question-and-answer interviews with key editors and round-table discussions with editors and reporters; and (3) occasionally offering commentary on two or three different topics, rather than one.
My first commentary, posted there two weeks ago, questioned the Washington bureau's slowness in pursuing the significance of the so-called Downing Street memo on planning for the Iraq war. (My Web journal can be found at nytimes.com/byroncalame.)
These new approaches all flow from what I see as my three essential obligations to you, the readers:
Making sure the concerns of readers and the public about the paper are heard -- and heeded when they are valid.
Monitoring The Times's journalistic integrity -- which, for me, means accuracy and fairness in both reality and perception.
Publicly assessing the newsroom's performance in these areas to enhance readers' understanding of the journalistic process and to remind editors and reporters to do their best.
Given these obligations, what do I bring to the job? The basic newsgathering process is something I know from bottom to top. By the time I retired from The Journal last December, I had held jobs ranging from the lowliest reporting assignment to deputy managing editor. In my last 12 years at The Journal, I had been responsible for quality control and ethics issues as well as overseeing the handling of readers' complaints and concerns. Having made almost all of the mistakes a newspaper reporter and editor can make -- and helped colleagues sort out their missteps over the past decade or so -- I think my sense of the mushy spots in daily journalism is pretty well developed.
Where am I coming from in terms of my attitudes and perspectives on life and journalism? Simply put, I would say The Times has a public editor with an instinctive affinity for the underdog and an enduring faith in a free press.
My early life left me sensitive to the problems of ordinary people and focused on journalism's role in looking out for the less powerful and those who have been wronged. The son of a Methodist minister, I spent all but a few months of my youth in southwest Missouri towns with populations ranging from 93 to 839. When a local weekly published a contribution of mine at 13, I decided that I wanted to become a journalist. At the Missouri School of Journalism, I was captured by the idea that the craft is one of public service -- with a crucial watchdog role in our democracy. Four years as a naval officer, including a 1962 patrol operation in South Vietnam, left me convinced that powerful institutions merit the news media's watchful eye. (Links to my biography and information about my personal affairs can be found on the Public Editor's Web Journal.)
A few readers have already questioned how open-minded I can be as public editor, given the well-known conservative views of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Two points: The Journal's newsroom and editorial page are separated by a thick wall, and all of my years at the paper were spent on the news side.
While his family in Leeds had no idea about his suicide mission, Tanweer confessed to his cousin his ambition to become a “holy warrior.” At his father’s home village 30 miles from Faisalabad, Mohammad Saleem described yesterday how Tanweer, 22, hero-worshipped Osama bin Laden.
Mr Saleem supported his cousin’s bombing at Aldgate station which killed seven people, saying: ““Whatever he has done, if he has done it, then he has done right.” He recalled how Tanweer argued with family and friends about the need for violent retaliation over US abuse of Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
Tanweer was no stranger to the village of Chak No 477, where his grandfather and several cousins live. During his last trip, the college dropout was visited by another of the bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan. They are said to have met a known al-Qaeda activist who has since been jailed for bombing a church. “Whenever he would listen about sufferings of Muslims he would become very emotional and sentimental,” Mr Saleem said. “He was a good Muslim . . . he also wished to take part in jihad and lay down his life.
“He knew that excesses are being done to Muslims. Incidents like desecration of the Koran have always been in his mind.”
Perhaps now that their irresponsible rhetoric has resulted in actual loss of life, Teddy, Carl, Dick, Howard, et al—along with their mouthpieces in the mainstream press who, until recently, have been too busy questioning every Bush administration motive to investigate Gitmo on their own, relying instead on misleading press releases from Amnesty International—will tone down the rhetoric and try to substantiate their accusations before launching them so frequently, forcefully, and publicly—where, it turns out, Muslims, including westernized Muslims, are actually listening. But I doubt it.
The saddest part? Nobody will hold these power-hungry hyperpartisans and their ulterior motives to account—because to do so would be to commit the cardinal sin of “questioning their patriotism.”
Well, let me be the first to break that particular taboo: “THE LEFT LIED AND LONDONERS DIED!”
Somebody should make a frickin’ t-shirt.
That's the great thing about multiculturalism: it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures - like, say, the capital of Bhutan or the principal exports of Malaysia, the sort of stuff the old imperialist wallahs used to be well up on. Instead, it just involves feeling warm and fluffy, making bliss out of ignorance. And one notices a subtle evolution in multicultural pieties since the Islamists came along. It was most explicitly addressed by the eminent British lawyer Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, QC, who thought that it was too easy to disparage "Islamic fundamentalists". "We as western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves. We don't look at our own fundamentalisms."
And what exactly would those western liberal fundamentalisms be? "One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I'm not sure that's true."
Hmm. Kennedy appears to be arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people's intolerance, which is intolerable. Thus the lop-sided valse macabre of our times: the more the Islamists step on our toes, the more we waltz them gaily round the room. I would like to think that the newly fortified Age columnists are representative of the culture's mood, but, if I had to bet, I'd put my money on Kennedy: anyone can be tolerant of the tolerant, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. Australia's old cultural cringe had a certain market rationality; the new multicultural cringe is pure nihilism.
. . . to seize power by force, cast a Taliban-style tyranny over the entirety of Southwest Asia and North Africa (to start), and bring the infidel world to its knees through the control of petroleum.
Why, four years after 9/11, does the media and the Left still fail to grasp this? Could it be because acknowledging this fact requires a stark choice to either fight or surrender, and they would prefer to create a fantasy through sophistry to allow them to simply go AWOL instead?
You know, if these people had blown something up, they'd be getting more press. Which suggests that if the press wants to help eliminate terrorism, it should adjust its priorities.
The aim of opening fire is to stop an imminent threat to life. The most effective means of incapacitating a suspect is to shoot at the central body mass which contains the central nervous system.
I absolutely believe that it is vital for a free and civilized society that the huge majority of people believe in what Dennis Prager calls "ethical monotheism." Prager defines ethical monotheism (as I understand it) as the belief in one omniscient God who demands that human beings behave towards each other with both decency and justice. Unless ethical monotheism is at the very core of a culture, that culture will retreat from justice and mock decency, and it will become a hellish place to live.
So I hope you're forgive my bluntness, but Barry Lynn and his United Separators can just go to the Hell that I don't believe in!
It would be more successful to rack up a large number of civilian casualties. But the threat of attack and fear of future attacks is just as much terrorism as the actual attack itself. So in that way, it's highly successful. This attack would augment that fear of terrorism simply because London was proven to be penetrable even at the time of high security, high vigilance, and increased scrutiny on the Muslim community. Because no matter if the bombs were duds or not, they could have been larger, could have been successful and they could have caused greater casualties. The simple idea that the attackers were able to get into place to set off detonators is enough to terrorize.
If only authorities would stop and search Middle Eastern-looking men with backpacks headed for public transit systems, they could prevent most of these suicide bombings. But they’d rather feel me up in the airport than “offend” homicidal Muslim maniacs.
"There'll be a battle because all Supreme Court nominations are battles, but this is not a holy war," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a Reagan White House chief of staff who steered the previous two Republican nominations onto the court for Bush's father. "I don't think the passion from the far left will be felt by all these Democratic senators."Well, Supreme Court nominations didn't used to be automatic battles. Ginsberg and Breyer sailed right through.
Only a few weeks before the 1964 election, a powerful presidential assistant, Walter Jenkins, was arrested in a men's room in Washington. Evidently, the president was concerned that Barry Goldwater would use that against him in the election. Another assistant, Bill Moyers, was tasked to direct Hoover to do an investigation of Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity. Mr. Moyers' memo to the FBI was in one of the [Official and Confidential] files.
When the press reported this, I received a call in my office from Mr. Moyers. Several of my assistants were with me. He was outraged; he claimed that this was another example of the Bureau salting its files with phony CIA memos. I was taken aback. I offered to conduct an investigation, which if his contention was correct, would lead me to publicly exonerate him. There was a pause on the line and then he said, "I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?" And then he rang off. I thought to myself that a number of the Watergate figures, some of whom the department was prosecuting, were very young, too.
the separation between church and state is under threat.
UPDATE: I just noticed another error in the article. It says: "Roberts is a member of the conservative Federalist Society, which has influenced Bush's judicial picks." This has been reported in dozens of mainstream outlets today, but it isn't true. Roberts says that he has given a speech or two to Federalist meetings, but has never been a member of the organization. But that's how the MSM operate: they read something and repeat it without doing any fact-checking
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. [emphasis added]
[stood] by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so [i.e., leaked Plame's name]?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
An article in the Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication. If this information is accurate -- a fact a court should explore -- there is an absolute defense to prosecution.
Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.
The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said.
I just love that the Bush White House was able to keep secret the biggest secret in Washington. Perhaps that will put into perspective whenever you hear a story prefaced by "sources say." With this White House, many of those sources don't know anything.
"The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, 'Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday,' nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a 'surprise tour of Iraq.' That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error."
The next morning, Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, and Mr. [David] Shipley[, the editor in charge of the Op-Ed pages], began work on the editors' note, the strongest of the corrective statements The Times publishes. Clearly, they didn't try to minimize the mistakes that had been made. But because they did not take a little more space to explain how the "surprise" phrases had surfaced as part of the give-and-take of the editing and updating process, readers were left to suspect the worst. And that fed perceptions of a serious ethical lapse at The Times.
"It did not occur to me to get into a more detailed explanation of the editorial process," Mr. Shipley said. "In hindsight, maybe I should have added a line or two. It was already pretty long and complicated, though."
Even with this sorting out of the mistakes actually made and the mistaken perceptions of some readers, the doubts about the paper's credibility stirred up by this incident won't be easily erased.