If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Al Jazeera)   Pentagon plans to monitor news media to prevent leaks of classified information, shut barn door behind escaped horses   (aljazeera.com) divider line 42
    More: Dumbass, Leon Panetta, defence minister, media monitoring, Jeh Johnson  
•       •       •

539 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-20 09:51:28 AM
HAH good luck with that.
 
2012-07-20 10:08:16 AM
so if the press does their jobs, they can expect to be arrested for it...? is that what the Fedgov is saying?
 
2012-07-20 11:59:30 AM
freedom of press my ass.....

/ ;)
 
2012-07-20 12:06:42 PM
The best part of the article is the source, That Al Jezeera guy sure knows our military.
 
2012-07-20 12:06:58 PM
I don't see anything in that article that suggests the Federal government can legally do anything about the media releasing any leaks they come across, besides saying "Pleeeease don't report on that!"
 
2012-07-20 12:10:10 PM

Weaver95: so if the press does their jobs, they can expect to be arrested for it...? is that what the Fedgov is saying?


Hot dog! We have a wiener!

Yeah, that is pretty much exactly what this is. The entire purpose of this announcement is a slightly-veiled threat to the media not to advance stories the government - or, let's be frank, the military establishment - doesn't like.
 
2012-07-20 12:25:05 PM
I'm sure Geraldo can draw a map to find the missing horses
 
2012-07-20 12:31:25 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Weaver95: so if the press does their jobs, they can expect to be arrested for it...? is that what the Fedgov is saying?

Hot dog! We have a wiener!

Yeah, that is pretty much exactly what this is. The entire purpose of this announcement is a slightly-veiled threat to the media not to advance stories the government - or, let's be frank, the military establishment - doesn't like.


Well they're monitoring the media, but leaks tend to originate outside of the media - there's nothing in there that specifically says to me that they'll punish the media outlets themselves, unless I miss it.
 
2012-07-20 12:52:29 PM
TFA: Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, has ordered senior Pentagon officials to begin monitoring major US news media for disclosures of classified information

What have they been doing up until now? Just sort of trusting that nothing was getting out? Or did they just figure they'd find out about leaks when journalists call them for comments?
 
2012-07-20 12:52:54 PM
When things are leaked to the press, someone is obviously not worthy of their classified materials rating(s). At that point, how the hell do you figure out who the leak is? Short of sequestering all staff, putting them under 24/7 surveillance, or other such Constitution-violating measures, you have to watch what information comes out, figure out who has access to it, and who has a motive for violating their secrecy ratings (typically monetary).

There's not really anything else you can do but watch what leaks. This is hardly surprise...
 
2012-07-20 12:53:37 PM
Or close the fence behind the escaping turtles.
 
2012-07-20 12:55:14 PM
What's the Pentagon biatching about?

The US media currently only reads out their press releases. That's the complete war coverage.

Why do you think you don't see pics or vids of US war dead being returned, much less pics or vids of their victims?
 
2012-07-20 12:58:36 PM
So they'll be tailing Bachmann from now on?
 
2012-07-20 01:44:38 PM

monoski: The best part of the article is the source, That Al Jezeera guy sure knows our military.


The domestic media have better things to do than report stories about military pencil pushers investigating into how military pencil pushers keep leaking stories to the domestic media. Would you like a pillow for your head?
 
2012-07-20 01:52:25 PM
static7.businessinsider.com

Hi, guys! What's going on in this thread?
 
2012-07-20 01:57:41 PM

SpaceButler: TFA: Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, has ordered senior Pentagon officials to begin monitoring major US news media for disclosures of classified information

What have they been doing up until now? Just sort of trusting that nothing was getting out? Or did they just figure they'd find out about leaks when journalists call them for comments?


No shiat. We used to monitor CNN all the damn time in CVIC specifically so we could figure out what was going on that the intel apparatus wasn't telling us.

Good old Leon, innovating again.
 
2012-07-20 02:18:59 PM

LasersHurt: A Dark Evil Omen: Weaver95: so if the press does their jobs, they can expect to be arrested for it...? is that what the Fedgov is saying?

Hot dog! We have a wiener!

Yeah, that is pretty much exactly what this is. The entire purpose of this announcement is a slightly-veiled threat to the media not to advance stories the government - or, let's be frank, the military establishment - doesn't like.

Well they're monitoring the media, but leaks tend to originate outside of the media - there's nothing in there that specifically says to me that they'll punish the media outlets themselves, unless I miss it.


I think they're hoping that they'll be able to track down whoever is leaking info more quickly if they catch the leak right when it starts. I don't know how that's going to help, given that most of the recent leaks have been large collections of stuff delivered all at once, but hey, it keeps the intel guys busy.
 
2012-07-20 02:30:14 PM
They already monitor the news media, along with everybody's calls and internet usage. What are they going to do next, install cameras in the newsroom?
 
2012-07-20 02:31:49 PM

farkityfarker: What's the Pentagon biatching about?

The US media currently only reads out their press releases. That's the complete war coverage.

Why do you think you don't see pics or vids of US war dead being returned, much less pics or vids of their victims?


Notice how that was a BIG DEAL when Bush was in office? Now......*crickets*..
 
2012-07-20 02:42:24 PM

ferretman: farkityfarker: What's the Pentagon biatching about?

The US media currently only reads out their press releases. That's the complete war coverage.

Why do you think you don't see pics or vids of US war dead being returned, much less pics or vids of their victims?

Notice how that was a BIG DEAL when Bush was in office? Now......*crickets*..


Obama's civil liberties track record is abysmal, but most of the groups that should be shining a spotlight on it are too busy kissing his ass. "Better than a neocon" is not an acceptable bar for a record on civil liberties.
 
2012-07-20 02:44:05 PM

imontheinternet: Obama's civil liberties track record is abysmal


Do tell. Or are you one of those "fix everything that could be considered a civil liberties issue, or you're worthless" types?
 
2012-07-20 03:05:01 PM

monoski: The best part of the article is the source, That Al Jezeera guy sure knows our military.


Watch their news channel a few times, over cover a lot of stories American networks ignore.

/BBC news offers a different perspective also

//killings going on in Chicago gets very little press here.
 
2012-07-20 03:17:15 PM

LasersHurt: imontheinternet: Obama's civil liberties track record is abysmal

Do tell. Or are you one of those "fix everything that could be considered a civil liberties issue, or you're worthless" types?


Patriot Act extension, NDAA, indefinite military detention and military tribunals, Gitmo still open, Bagram still open, extraordinary rendition, drone killings, intrusive surveillance techniques, TSA screenings, etc.

What exactly has Obama done right on civil liberties? Most of his policies are just continuations of those of the Bush administration, at least the ACLU seems to think so.

Don't kid yourself. Obama has a terrible civil liberties track record.
 
2012-07-20 03:21:49 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: imontheinternet: Obama's civil liberties track record is abysmal

Do tell. Or are you one of those "fix everything that could be considered a civil liberties issue, or you're worthless" types?

Patriot Act extension, NDAA, indefinite military detention and military tribunals, Gitmo still open, Bagram still open, extraordinary rendition, drone killings, intrusive surveillance techniques, TSA screenings, etc.

What exactly has Obama done right on civil liberties? Most of his policies are just continuations of those of the Bush administration, at least the ACLU seems to think so.

Don't kid yourself. Obama has a terrible civil liberties track record.


So I was partially right. A mix of "fix it all, or you're the devil" and "I don't know what civil liberties issues are."
 
2012-07-20 03:22:29 PM
Oh, with a healthy helping of "I don't know what the powers and job of the President is, and I have no concept of what he can and cannot do"
 
2012-07-20 03:30:06 PM

imontheinternet: Don't kid yourself. Obama America has a terrible civil liberties track record.


Smell where I'm pointing, not my finger.
 
2012-07-20 03:39:59 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: I don't see anything in that article that suggests the Federal government can legally do anything about the media releasing any leaks they come across, besides saying "Pleeeease don't report on that!"


They could put censors in news offices and follow reporters. Perhaps they will have some kind of listening device, or perhaps they will force every word of news to pass a pentagon censor before it is aired.
 
2012-07-20 03:44:35 PM

LasersHurt: So I was partially right. A mix of "fix it all, or you're the devil" and "I don't know what civil liberties issues are.

Oh, with a healthy helping of "I don't know what the powers and job of the President is, and I have no concept of what he can and cannot do""


Detention, surveillance, torture, and extrajudicial killings are civil liberty issues, and each one is greatly affected by the orders of the Executive Branch.

You haven't even bothered to defend the position of Obama being a civil liberties champion. I know it's an election year, and everybody likes to cheer for their team, but you should really take a look at this issue critically.
 
2012-07-20 03:47:23 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: So I was partially right. A mix of "fix it all, or you're the devil" and "I don't know what civil liberties issues are.

Oh, with a healthy helping of "I don't know what the powers and job of the President is, and I have no concept of what he can and cannot do""

Detention, surveillance, torture, and extrajudicial killings are civil liberty issues, and each one is greatly affected by the orders of the Executive Branch.

You haven't even bothered to defend the position of Obama being a civil liberties champion. I know it's an election year, and everybody likes to cheer for their team, but you should really take a look at this issue critically.


I like how you managed to criticize me for not defending him, and implied that I am defending him at the same time.
 
2012-07-20 04:00:15 PM

LasersHurt: I like how you managed to criticize me for not defending him, and implied that I am defending him at the same time.


I like how you imply a position, make an ad hominem attack, then when challenged, refuse to expressly declare a position or defend your previous assertions. I think Cicero used the same technique in the Roman Senate.
 
2012-07-20 04:05:26 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: I like how you managed to criticize me for not defending him, and implied that I am defending him at the same time.

I like how you imply a position, make an ad hominem attack, then when challenged, refuse to expressly declare a position or defend your previous assertions. I think Cicero used the same technique in the Roman Senate.


I'm not going to debate with you on this. For one, this isn't the thread for it. For two, I sincerely doubt that you'd be interested in debate - your mind is already made up the Obama is a terrible president for Civil Liberties, and there's no amount of argument we could have that would change it. You hold him fully and personally responsible for everything you find bad, whether he can control it or not, and whether he started the policy or not. From the list you gave, the only way you could ever change your mind is if he personally changed decades of history and steamrolled over everyone in our government.

I don't think you'd disagree if I said "It's literally impossible for Obama to make you happy about these things."
 
2012-07-20 04:14:53 PM

LasersHurt: I don't think you'd disagree if I said "It's literally impossible for Obama to make you happy about these things."


If he'd repeal the post-9/11 Bush abuses and not commit any especially egregious new ones, like he said he would while running for president, I'd sing his praises.
 
2012-07-20 04:17:31 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: I don't think you'd disagree if I said "It's literally impossible for Obama to make you happy about these things."

If he'd repeal the post-9/11 Bush abuses and not commit any especially egregious new ones, like he said he would while running for president, I'd sing his praises.


He can't repeal those. Congress can. And it's entirely a matter of opinion as to whether the use of drones to strike terrorists is "egregious."
 
2012-07-20 04:27:58 PM

LasersHurt: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: I don't think you'd disagree if I said "It's literally impossible for Obama to make you happy about these things."

If he'd repeal the post-9/11 Bush abuses and not commit any especially egregious new ones, like he said he would while running for president, I'd sing his praises.

He can't repeal those. Congress can. And it's entirely a matter of opinion as to whether the use of drones to strike terrorists is "egregious."


He didn't have to sign the Patriot Act extension. He could refuse to sign the NDAA as long as it had indefinite detention provisions. He could close Gitmo on his own. He could order civilian trials for detainees on his own. He could establish a higher standard for ordering drone strikes. He could order an end to extraordinary rendition. He hasn't even made even a half-hearted attempt at any of it.

I don't think you understand the powers of the Executive Branch.
 
2012-07-20 04:33:37 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: I don't think you'd disagree if I said "It's literally impossible for Obama to make you happy about these things."

If he'd repeal the post-9/11 Bush abuses and not commit any especially egregious new ones, like he said he would while running for president, I'd sing his praises.

He can't repeal those. Congress can. And it's entirely a matter of opinion as to whether the use of drones to strike terrorists is "egregious."

He didn't have to sign the Patriot Act extension. He could refuse to sign the NDAA as long as it had indefinite detention provisions. He could close Gitmo on his own. He could order civilian trials for detainees on his own. He could establish a higher standard for ordering drone strikes. He could order an end to extraordinary rendition. He hasn't even made even a half-hearted attempt at any of it.

I don't think you understand the powers of the Executive Branch.


... the drone program STARTED to give him, personally, a higher level of control over it. That's the whole point of the program. And I don't think you understand reality if you think he can just close gitmo, order the trials, and stop rendition without holy hell breaking loose.
 
2012-07-20 04:39:55 PM

LasersHurt: ... the drone program STARTED to give him, personally, a higher level of control over it. That's the whole point of the program. And I don't think you understand reality if you think he can just close gitmo, order the trials, and stop rendition without holy hell breaking loose politically.


Hence the problem. He was elected to do a job, but when he encountered hardship, he turned tail and ran. And no, it's not the same as compromising on healthcare to get it passed, because as I said before, he didn't need Congress to do a great deal of things that would improve the civil liberties situation in this country immensely. Instead, he's let the post-9/11 kneejerk, authoritarian response by the Bush Administration become the new normal.

That's a failure of leadership and a legitimate criticism of Obama. Of course, Romeny would be even worse, but again, that's not setting the bar anywhere near high enough.
 
2012-07-20 04:48:02 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: ... the drone program STARTED to give him, personally, a higher level of control over it. That's the whole point of the program. And I don't think you understand reality if you think he can just close gitmo, order the trials, and stop rendition without holy hell breaking loose politically.

Hence the problem. He was elected to do a job, but when he encountered hardship, he turned tail and ran. And no, it's not the same as compromising on healthcare to get it passed, because as I said before, he didn't need Congress to do a great deal of things that would improve the civil liberties situation in this country immensely. Instead, he's let the post-9/11 kneejerk, authoritarian response by the Bush Administration become the new normal.

That's a failure of leadership and a legitimate criticism of Obama. Of course, Romeny would be even worse, but again, that's not setting the bar anywhere near high enough.


Well, if your complaint is "reality sucks," try to keep it focused. If you want someone to get into office, then Kamikaze themselves into doing "the right thing," you'll die unhappy having never seen it. It's not going to happen. Ideology isn't workable in real life - you have to work with the reality you have, not the one you want.

Obama isn't superman. Nobody is. There is literally nobody who is perfect.
 
2012-07-20 05:05:12 PM

LasersHurt: Obama isn't superman. Nobody is. There is literally nobody who is perfect.


The perfect is the enemy of the good, not the enemy of doing absolutely nothing in the face of the bad.
 
2012-07-20 05:07:21 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Obama isn't superman. Nobody is. There is literally nobody who is perfect.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, not the enemy of doing absolutely nothing in the face of the bad.


"absolutely nothing" See, this is where you lose me. He's not done "absolutely nothing," he just hasn't done what YOU want.
 
2012-07-21 08:16:37 AM
How is he supposed to close GITMO if Congress won't let him spend a cent to do so?

Is he supposed to simply open the doors and let the prisoners walk to the nearest village?
 
2012-07-21 09:10:26 AM

Flab: How is he supposed to close GITMO if Congress won't let him spend a cent to do so?

Is he supposed to simply open the doors and let the prisoners walk to the nearest village?


Actually... That would be hilarious. Cuba would make such hay of that and make a national embarassment of America.
 
2012-07-21 01:22:11 PM
I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm with imontheinternet here. LasersHurt, through this whole back and forth, you haven't listed what he has done in an effort to defend your position. Once you try, it's easy to see the political motivations. His biggest civil liberties wins net him new voters from the gay and Hispanic communities, and the things he hasn't done (even if he previously, theatrically, promised to - close gitmo) probably haven't hurt him since it can't possibly be used by republicans against him and his supporters from the last election, myself included, aren't exactly jumping ship. Not trying to diminish the long term impact of what he has accomplished, but when it comes to reversing some of the more terrifying war practices established under Bush, he's been crap. He's been the War President Bush WISHES he was. He's kept most of the evil in place, and added a healthy helping of drone violence to it.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report