NYT Editorial Board Slams Obama On Tracking: ‘Administration Has Now Lost All Credibility’

[ProSense]

NYT Editorial Board Slams Obama On Tracking: ‘Administration Has Now Lost All Credibility’

The New York Times editorial board pilloried the Obama administration on Thursday, after it was reported that the National Security Agency actively collects phone log records of millions of Americans under a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) order.

"The administration has now lost all credibility," the Times' editors write. "Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the 9/11 attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers."

They added: "We are not questioning the legality under the Patriot Act of the court order disclosed by The Guardian. But we strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said in 2007 that the Bush administration’s surveillance policy “puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.”

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/nyt-editorial-board-slams-obama-on-tracking-administration

Frankly, I think this hyperbole is proof that the media are trying to salvage the Republicans' repututation, and likely Bush's.

Here's how the NYT editorial ends:

<...>

On Thursday, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, who introduced the Patriot Act in 2001, said that the National Security Agency overstepped its bounds by issuing a secret order to collect phone log records from millions of Americans. “As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the F.B.I.’s interpretation of this legislation,” he said in a statement. “While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses.” He added: “Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.”

This stunning use of the act shows, once again, why it needs to be sharply curtailed if not repealed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html

I mean, it's not like the NYT isn't aware of Bush's actions prior to 2007.

For the Republican opportunists, Bush actually spied on people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557

[Buzz Clik]

1. I wonder if the NY Times uses tracking cookies for its website. Wanna take bets?

[RobinA]

79. The NYT

is not the government.

[Buzz Clik]

87. That is not the bet.

[DJ13]

2. The problem for Obama is he campaigned as an advocate for ending the Bush abuses

This represents a real betrayal of his campaign promises.

[leveymg]

77. It's not the Patriot Act that legalized this, it's the 2008 FISA Amendment which Obama voted for

along with a majority of his Democratic colleagues that authorized "drift net" warrants.

The NSA information retention and minimization rules are by Presidential Order, not agency rules. Overreach is by the White House, under both Bush and Obama, the latter pursuant to the 2008 FISA Amendment which Senator Obama voted for along with a majority of the Democratic Senate.

It's not just the agency or the Intelligence Community. If things need adjustment, it's needed at all levels.

[librechik]

91. you're right, but it's not fair to make Obama take ALL the blame

it must be acknowledged that "The Government That Stays On After The Elections" is a more powerful force than our democracy nowadays, and that is a cultural condition Obama occupies because he has a certain position in the system. Has nothing to do with ideology, because ideology doesn't motivate "TGTSOATE." It's full of ideologues of all stripes, from Nazis to commies to anarchistic industrialists. They don't care.

Survival and profit runs the invisible/permanent government. Nothing philosophical or even very human. They'd just as well everybody else died, as long as their own concerns profit by it. My husband calls them Malthusians.

[leveymg]

96. Oh, I don't blame Obama alone, at all. It's all three branches have had a role in putting this

mechanism in place, first, and legalizing it afterwards. The Jane Mayer profile of Bill Binny makes that clear when Binney tried to alert people in Congress, the Executive and even a Supreme Court Justice about what was going on.

If I could be convinced that The Program actually prevents serious acts of terrorism, I might be actually consider supporting it with some additional safeguards. But, from what I can see, almost all the actual mass casualty attacks in the last few decades are by people the gov't -- or at least one agency -- was already well aware of.

This seems to largely be control for its own sake.

[librechik]

97. it's just more gratuitous police control that we should try to stop

but it's overwhelming, and it's only going to get worse in the future.

[leveymg]

98. I agree. This is just the mild beginnings of the abuse of these unprecedented powers of state.

[1-Old-Man]

110. So you don't believe in the old saw "The Buck Stops Here"

If the President does not take responsibility for the actions of the Executive Agencies then please tell me who in all of creation should do so in his stead? And if the President isn't responsible then why on earth do we even have a President? Today the President is Obama, today the problems of the Agencies are his problems - how, where, and when they were created is immaterial and frankly are just an excuses for inaction from the White House. It is Obama's problem to fix.

[spanone]

3. i don't remember that meme from the nyt with the bu$h name attached...

[Coyotl]

90. I remember the NYT covering up Bush's illegal spying before the 2004 elections, giving him a win

in effect, albeit stealing Ohio was still required to make it over the top for that criminal junta.

[pmorlan1]

4. Hyperbole?

Oh my. I can't say what I really want to say because it would be against the rules at DU.

[ProSense]

8. Yes, I take

"Hyperbole? Oh my. I can't say what I really want to say because it would be against the rules at DU."

...issue with the NYT whenever they try to overlook the worst of Bush and frame Obama with the "he called out Bush, but look what he's doing" brush.

NY Times's excuse for not calling waterboarding "torture" doesn't hold water

<...>

The New York Times has now explained the reasoning behind its decision, and it's pretty surprising. The paper disputed the study's accuracy, but it gave Michael Calderone a statement acknowledging the shift and conceding that Bush administration entreaties were partly responsible:

"As the debate over interrogation of terror suspects grew post-9/11, defenders of the practice (including senior officials of the Bush administration) insisted that it did not constitute torture," a Times spokesman said in a statement.

"When using a word amounts to taking sides in a political dispute, our general practice is to supply the readers with the information to decide for themselves. Thus we describe the practice vividly, and we point out that it is denounced by international covenants and in American tradition as a form of torture."

The Times' explanation is that once Bush officials started arguing that waterboarding wasn't torture, the only way to avoid taking sides was to stop using the word. But here's the problem: Not using the word also consitutes taking a side: That of the Bush administration.

That's because this debate wasn't merely a semantic one. It was occuring in a legal context.

- more -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/times_excuse_for_not_calling_w.html

[pmorlan1]

107. Really?

So because the NYT called torture - enhanced interrogation they must be wrong now? Sorry, but I was a big critic of the Times and other media outlets for their gutlessness in confronting torture but in this case they are correct. You are going to have to address the evidence for the current story not try to use an unrelated story to support your case.

[louslobbs]

5. Every time I buy swiss cheese, I'm reminded of what the original paper document of our

CONstitution must look like today, in person, just since the Supreme Corporate Court put W into power.
Lou

[Whisp]

6. They are calling in all troops and trying Everything

to besmirch the good President Obama.

Knock yourselves out, assholes, and sweat like the pigs you are in trying so hard.

[ucrdem]

10. LOL. Speaking of troops I think they really want to get that Syria thing on.

And of course they've been wanting to bomb Iran since forever. Nothing sells papers like a good war I guess. Pretty cynical.

[ucrdem]

7. Oh good grief. Hyperbole on ritalin.

Painfully ridiculous. Did Murdoch secretly buy the NYT or did they sell it to Reverend Moon? I can't figure out what they're after but when they're bad they're worse than the Drudge report.

[Eleanors38]

74. Carlos Slim put a quarter billion into the NYT.

[still_one]

9. NYT lost their credibility with Judy miller, and others pushing us into a war based on a lie

Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Do they have a point? Yes, but coming from the times after their eyes being closed when the patriot act was passed gives them no value in my book

Criticisms from a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are credible.

I don't like hypocrites

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. +1

[bullimiami]

52. Exactly the first thing I thought of. Judith Miller.

[Kurovski]

11. The NYT was more than happy to promote the Cheney/Bush wars.

And shit on DU!

You have to go to England to get a newspaper these days.

[markpkessinger]

68. And candidate Obama was more than happy to take the Bush Admin to task . . .

. . . for exactly this kind of overreach in the name of security.

[The Link]

12. Thats it. Add the NYT.

Blame Bush.

Blame the judge that issued the warrant.

Blame Verizon.

Blame my phone.

Blame the NYT.

[choie]

13. It is absolutely incredible to me

that you will do anything to defend and shield Obama from criticism, no matter how heinous his policies/actions might be. It would be laughable if it weren't so pitiful...

[ProSense]

15. Hey,

"It is absolutely incredible to me that you will do anything to defend and shield Obama from criticism, no matter how heinous his policies/actions might be. It would be laughable if it weren't so pitiful..."

...it isn't about me. The OP is my opinion. You can agree with the NYT if you're so inclined. Why focus on me? Am I that important?

Yes, I think the NYT piece is hyperbole. I can't make you agree.

[choie]

19. No, you're not important at all

but I like wasting my time.

[ProSense]

24. "but I like wasting my time."

Good to know.

[Cha]

30. That's obvious, choie

[DesMoinesDem]

27. Yea, this isn't about you. This is about...um... the media!

Anything to take the attention away from the actions of the Obama administration. ProPaganda 101

[Logical]

104. You think everything is about you! n-t

[Skeeter Barnes]

17. Got to get out in front of this and frame it.

"hyperbole"

Somebody is going to be paying out on a lot of overtime hours for the next day or two.

[ProSense]

21. OMG

"Got to get out in front of this and frame it."

...who knew I rule the Internets.

"Somebody is going to be paying out on a lot of overtime hours for the next day or two. "

Seriously, your comment is lame idiotic drivel. The fact that you spent the energy to type this brings into question your judgment.

Hyperbole. I said it. Don't like it? Tough!

[Skeeter Barnes]

26. Keep up the good work.

[ProSense]

28. Keep thinking about me. I look forward to the next stupid comment.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Stay out of this - you said this isn't about you

Therefore, please refrain from commenting on what you have said in this thread. If you bow out by saying it isn't about you, then be consisent, and don't reply to what anyone says about you.

[ucrdem]

46. Why on earth would ProSense need or want to stay out of her own thread?

That makes even less sense than this Orwellian NYT editorial. Please let's not all throw reason to the wind, eh?

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. #15, by ProSense: "it isn't about me"

ProSense had previously said this isn't about ProSense. So they have no right to later reply "I said it. Don't like it? Tough! ". We have been told to ignore what ProSense said. By ProSense.

The problem is that it's ProSense who has thrown reason to the wind in this thread. I'm just pointing it out.

[ucrdem]

51. Okay I missed the invisible Monopoly rule change.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[hamster]

59. together

we got Obama's back! Haters gonna hate.

[Cha]

33. And, there it is again.. another personal attack because

you can't handle the message. So you have to attack the messenger with some stupid insult.

[great white snark]

54. Wow, you showed her.

The paid poster accusation is so original too and even more biting when considering your high post count.

Bravo.

[obama2terms]

89. Exactly!

All presidents good or bad do bad things, and we need to call them out for it no matter which party they belong to!

[randome]

14. 'Using power' is the same as 'abusing it', huh?

Get rid of the Patriot Act! Stop excoriating Obama for using the tools that Congress, in its infinite stupidity, gave to the President.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[treestar]

16. Exactly.

Sensenbrenner, if it wasn't such a great idea, repeal it, you moron.

Typical Republican.

[randome]

18. And nothing about the GOP side of the 3 month review.

Both parties authorized this -every fricking 3 months since 2006. A judge authorized this. The Patriot Act authorized this.

But hey, let's pile on Obama!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Andy823]

42. +1000

I totally agree. Congress is the one that can stop this, and any president is apt to use the tools they have to prevent what they may consider a threat to the U.S.A. I don't like this kind of thing but for crying out loud if someone is pissed off let congress shoulder the blame. Find out if their rep voted for the patriot act, and then chew their ass out and let them know you think it should be repealed, or changed.

Hell this has been going on long before Obama took office, and if congress keeps passing things that allow this to be done it will continue for who knows how long.

[RobinA]

80. Odd Reasoning

So if I legally buy a gun following all established rules, shooting someone with it isn't a crime because I legitimately have the gun?

[DesMoinesDem]

20. These are the talking points you went with?

Jesus. I thought you could do much better. You didn't even make an argument.

[ProSense]

23. Yes, that's my opinion. Now what?

"Jesus. I thought you could do much better. You didn't even make an argument"

Guess you're not thinking clearly, huh?

I'm prepared to spend this entire thread talking about me. You?

[Cha]

35. Evidently you can't do any better.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. And the NYT lost all creditability when they were cheerleading the Iraq War

Two can play that game

[limpyhobbler]

25. oh boy. here we go again.

It's not like it's ok to do something just because Bush did it. That's one of the reasons we didn't like Bush.

[Skip Intro]

31. I was wondering when you'd show up to try to spin this away as a harmelss bit of nothing.

Didn't take you long.

[ProSense]

32. You were thinking about me?

I'm flattered.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. ROFL

Burn

[Skip Intro]

39. I'm actually amazed by you.

I admire persistence and you got that by the truckload.

But, as I've said to you before, you can't spin away reality.

[ucrdem]

36. It isn't harmless, it's malicious and misleading.

And dangerous. Let's call it what it is.

[Skip Intro]

40. Indeed.

[ucrdem]

41. Yes, indeed. And here we are on DU

to get the unspun news from ProSense.

[Cha]

37. You're always there to throw stupid insults.

[Logical]

106. Are you always tree to throw out stupid defenses? Any difference? n-t

[Logical]

105. I actually was waiting for it. It never fails! n-t

[Luminous Animal]

34. Given that the NY Times broke Bush's illegal NSA program, they are probably aware that the Bush

admin spied on people.

Oh look! They actually wrote editorials about it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/opinion/06thu1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/opinion///20tue1.html?incamp=article_popular

[ProSense]

43. Here's one:

Editorial

The Eavesdropping Continues

<...>

In a disturbing article in The Times on Wednesday, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau said that Congressional investigations suggest that the National Security Agency continues to routinely collect Americans’ telephone calls and e-mail messages — perhaps by the millions.

<...>

President George W. Bush started violating that law shortly after 9/11 when he authorized the N.S.A. to conduct domestic wiretapping without first getting the required warrant. When that program was exposed by The Times in late 2004, the Bush team began pressuring Congress to give retroactive legal cover to the eavesdropping operation and to the telecommunications companies that participated in it.

That finally happened in the heat of the 2008 campaign. Congress expanded FISA and gave the companies blanket immunity less than a day after the bill was introduced. We doubt if many lawmakers read the legislation. President Obama, who was still a senator at the time, voted for it, even though he had been passionately denouncing illegal wiretapping for months.

<...>

We do not believe that Mr. Obama is deliberately violating Americans’ rights as Mr. Bush did, and it is to his credit that the government acknowledged part of the problem in April. But this nation’s civil liberties are not predicated on trusting individuals to wield their powers honorably. They are founded on laws.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/opinion/18thu1.html

[ucrdem]

44. Wait, what?

We do not believe that Mr. Obama is deliberately violating Americans’ rights as Mr. Bush did, and it is to his credit that the government acknowledged part of the problem in April. But this nation’s civil liberties are not predicated on trusting individuals to wield their powers honorably. They are founded on laws.

Let's see, "this nation's civil liberties" are "founded on laws," but the BO admin. didn't break any laws, or violate anyone's rights, or keep it a secret? But they're outraged anyway?


That doesn't many any sense.

[Luminous Animal]

47. That is an editiorial from 2009. It helps to know what they were editorializing about.

[ucrdem]

49. And the issue is different how?

Other than that the heckler thing washed out?

[Luminous Animal]

53. Because what the editorial was about was illegal activity.

From the article the editorial referenced:

Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency’s ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans’ e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?_r=1&ref=politics

[ucrdem]

56. There's no question of violating "legal limits" this time

so you'd think they'd be sending him hearts and flowers, not hate mail. Go figure.

[ProSense]

62. Yup, he followed the law, and ironically,

the NYT advocated a FISA-like court for targeted killings.

President Obama followed the law. Here is the NYT advocating a FISA-like court for targeted killings.

Editorial

A Court for Targeted Killings

<...>

A growing number of lawmakers and experts are beginning to recognize that some form of judicial review is necessary for these killings, usually by missiles fired from unmanned drones. Last week, at the confirmation hearing of John Brennan to be the director of the C.I.A., several senators said they were considering the establishment of a special court, similar to the one that now decides whether to approve wiretapping for intelligence gathering.

<...>

A special court, which we first proposed in a 2010 editorial, would be an analogue to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that Congress set up in 1978. If the administration has evidence that a suspect is a terrorist threat to the United States, it would have to present that evidence in secret to a court before the suspect is placed on a kill list.

“Having the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner, all in one, is very contrary to the traditions and the laws of this country,” Senator Angus King Jr. of Maine said at the Brennan hearing. “If you’re planning a strike over a matter of days, weeks or months, there is an opportunity to at least go to some outside-of-the-executive-branch body, like the FISA Court, in a confidential and top-secret way, make the case that this American citizen is an enemy combatant.”

Mr. Brennan said the idea was worthy of discussion, adding that the Obama administration had “wrestled with this.” Two other senators, Dianne Feinstein of California, the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, and Ron Wyden of Oregon, also expressed interest. Even Robert Gates, a former C.I.A. director who was defense secretary under President George W. Bush and President Obama, said on CNN that such a judicial panel “would give the American people confidence” that a proper case had been made against an American citizen.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/opinion/a-special-court-is-needed-to-review-targeted-killings.html

[ucrdem]

63. Another invisible rule change.

There seem to be a lot of those lately.

[ProSense]

58. Think about how bad Bush was.

From one of the editorials you linked to:

Even if Congress did pass strong legislation, there is a good chance that President Bush, who has a sweeping — and unjustified — view of presidential power, would ignore it. If the Supreme Court told him to stop breaking the law, however, it would be difficult for him to defy its order.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/opinion/06thu1.html

Think about that. The biggest problem, and the NYT and everyone railing against the Obama administration for lawful, albeit controversial, activity, know it, is that Republicans are not going to support changing these laws no matter what.

President Obama will follow the laws.

Look at what happened with the shield laws. After the media and Republican outrage died down, nothing. The calls for such a law have all but disappeared from the media. There is no accountability for Republicans. None.

[Major Hogwash]

50. From Day One.

The last line in that piece that you copied that says:

They are founded on laws.

Should have been written:

"They are founded on lies."

Because the entire Bush administration, for both terms, was founded on lies, from Day One.

[Cali_Democrat]

65. How come they never said the Bush admin lost all credibility?

Bush warrantless wiretap. Obama admin obtained a FISA warrant.

Yet the Obama Aministration is the one that loses all credibility?

Fuck the NYT....stenographers for Bush as they were cheering the Iraq war.

Fuck those bastards.

[RobinA]

82. Because Bush Never

had credibility on this subject to begin with. Obama was (past tense) supposed to be better than Bush in civil liberties. Alas...

I don't get this thread. Why is the NYT part of the discussion? They can be right, they can be wrong. Just because they were wrong once, or twice or three times, doesn't make them wrong now. I'll take my defenses of the Constitution where I can get them these days.

[Cali_Democrat]

94. If the NYT thinks Bush never had cred on the subject

why were they cheerleading a war which was led by someone with no credibility?

It's the NYT that has no credibility.

[leveymg]

78. The 2008 FISA Amendment Act legalized much of Bush's NSA program, particularly "driftnet" warrants

of the type that just came to light. I think the startling thing is that the FISA Court order is for ALL telephone records nationwide, and not just for any particular city where the gov't might claim it thinks there might be terrorist suspects.

The scope of the actual NSA program really is much broader than most legal analysts had predicted based upon the '08 FAA.

[mn9driver]

55. 2014 is too close and the Democrats are too popular.

The media have been directed to even things up. Full Democratic control of Washington would be a disaster for the charade, so it's important that the House stay Republican. This is how it's going to happen.

[RobinA]

86. The Way It Looks

to me, full Democratic control of Washington would be PERFECT for the charade.

In fact, I'm thinking that IS the charade.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Holder has determined that throwing cancer patients in prison for smoking pot is a priority.

How is he supposed to keep us safe from the terrorist cancer chemo pot smokers if he doesn't have the tools to monitor their phone calls to make sure they're not taking a break from vomiting to call someone to buy a dime bag and potentially engage in some terror terror dangerous pot buying terrror terrorism?




You want the terrorist pot smokers to win?

[markpkessinger]

67. +1 n/t

[RobinA]

83. Yeah

I've been waiting for the day since the '70's. Cause they WILL win. I just hope I'm around to see it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. There's an easy solution to this: Obama announces he will shut down the wiretaps.

[ProSense]

61. What "wiretaps"? n/t

[winter is coming]

75. Such an announcement is several years overdue. n/t

[obliviously]

64. There's something happening here

What it is ain't exactly clear There's a man with a gun over there Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right if everybody's wrong Young people speaking their minds Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat A thousand people in the street Singing songs and carrying signs Mostly say, hooray for our side [ From: http://www.metrolyrics.com/somethings-happening-here-lyrics-buffalo-springfield.html ]
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep Into your life it will creep It starts when you're always afraid You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down Stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down Stop, now, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down Stop, children, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down

Read more: BUFFALO SPRINGFIELD - SOMETHINGS HAPPENING HERE LYRICS
[ From: http://www.metrolyrics.com/somethings-happening-here-lyrics-buffalo-springfield.html ]

[markpkessinger]

66. Why have you misleadingly truncated the Times' quote?

The Times editorial did not say: "The administration has now lost all credibility." It said: "The administration has now lost all credibility on this point." (emphasis added) Those additional three words do provide an important limitation on the scope of the lost credibility the editorial asserts. And within that more narrow scope that the full sentence indicates, I think the editorial makes a pretty good argument.

[cali]

69. Thank you for pointing that out. The OP does that habitually

she did it me yesterday, cutting off a quote of mine.

It's a deplorable form of propaganda.

[ProSense]

88. You're so disingenuous it isn't funny!

You spend all your time making nasty comments about people. I hope the facts of this make those who believed the worst feel really stupid.

[Hissyspit]

92. The phrase was apparently added by the NYT later.

[Cali_Democrat]

95. The NYT edited it hours later. You should apologize to ProSense for false accusations. n/t

[Snowfield]

70. Whilst I disagree with the OP's take, TPM did the truncation (sort of)

Btw, they say it was the NYT that did the edit,

Update: The article was edited several hours after originally being published to now read: "The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue."


Apparently it was the NYT (although I cannot find the NYT anywhere showing the edit, other people have caught them):

N.Y. Times changes scathing editorial

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/06/ny-times-changes-scathing-editorial-165650.html

[WilliamPitt]

72. They added "on this point" after it was published.

Those words were not there when the article first came out.

[uponit7771]

84. Either one is hyperbole!!! The admin has NOT lost credibility on ANY point

[RILib]

100. the admin has lost all credibility

with me.

[WilliamPitt]

71. They edited the editorial.

Added "on this issue" after the line about losing all credibility. Go look for yourself; those words weren't there when the editorial first went up.

[B2G]

81. Will is correct

They added that phrase about 4 hours after it was initially published. Without mentioning the change, I might add.

Wonder who in the White House made the phone call?

[Rex]

73. Judith Miller made sure the NYT lost all credibility years ago.

That means their claim has less merit than there being WMDs in Iraq.

[uponit7771]

85. +1

[librechik]

93. +100--they have a lot of nerve

they are a bunch of paid liars when they want to be.

[Major Hogwash]

108. The best cartoon the NYT ever published was the one of Osama bin Laden's underground lair.

Complete with anti-aircraft missile batteries hidden at the top of the mountain chain, linked to secretive radar sites, with numerous secretive hidden passages carved out of the side of the mountain, all leading to underground storage rooms filled with gazillions of weapons, and secretive meeting rooms where they could plan their next attacks, with room enough for thousands of Al Queda members to run around underground like ants.

Batman himself wouldn't have even attempted an attack on that frickin' underground complex!!

The NYT turned Osama bin Laden in to the most evil genius criminal cartoon figure evah!!

[hamster]

76. Some folks are just upset

that they didn't get a pony. The Republicans drove the car into the ditch and some seem to wanna give em back the keys. i don't know about you, but I've got President Obama's back. I tell ya, it feels good to say that. PRESIDENT OBAMA.

[brett_jv]

99. Suppose it turns out there's NO personally identifying info in these records?

Let's just say that it turns out that Verizon or whoever doesn't produce 'names' ... no personally identifying information, just the phone call meta-data, and then a warrant is req'd to get teh names.

If that is the case, which I've heard tell that it IS ... then why does any of this phone record stuff even matter? How is it 'spying' if they don't know who the data belongs to?

[lhooq]

102. Metadata is more informative than you may think ...

Quality metadata may be more valuable and more personally identifying than "names".

Thought experiment: imagine a data breach in which hackers obtained (a) your name, as it appears on your birth certificate, or (b) your Social Security number or equivalent. Which one would you rather not lose.

With phone number data, the NSA might be able to track back to how you paid your phone bill and from there obtain bank account information, etc.

Counterpoint: Of course, lots of your (my, our) metadata is already out there, and it is collected by businesses such as Google. Go to http://whatismyipaddress.com/ and see how much information about you that your web browser and IP address reveal.

[delrem]

101. There was a chance when it was only W, but now we're all bushies.

It doesn't feel good.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

103. twas Congress

meaning Congress is the branch that passes laws. The laws were passed long ago to approve this monitoring. People act as though it just happened this week. The NYT is using all it can to sink us.

[rocktivity]

109. I have only two things to say regarding the Times editorial

Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2013, 06:39 PM - Edit history (2)

Judith Miller and Bill Keller.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2486612#2486631


rocktivity

[FirstLight]

111. quick question...

Is the Times considered a right-leaning paper in your opinions?