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.

(Slate)   Fox reporter James Rosen blew a US intelligence source in North Korea. Wait, that didn't come out right   (slate.com) divider line 96
    More: Interesting, North Korea, Seymour Hersh, My Lai, intelligence, Howard Hughes  
•       •       •

1906 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 May 2013 at 1:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-30 12:18:25 PM
funny how nobody's discussing this aspect of the "scandal."
 
2013-05-30 12:26:19 PM
If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.
 
2013-05-30 12:26:58 PM

FlashHarry: funny how nobody's discussing this aspect of the "scandal."


"Irresponsible" does not mean "criminal," which is something even the article makes clear:

I'm not saying that Rosen should have been treated like a criminal; even Holder is backpedaling from that claim now.

Miranda and Escobedo were dirtbag career criminals, too.
 
2013-05-30 12:31:19 PM

R.A.Danny: If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.


hence the leak investigation.
 
2013-05-30 12:33:32 PM

FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.

hence the leak investigation.


My point is that putting Rosen on the hot-seat for having info that just about any shmoe off the street can get their hands on is just silly.
 
2013-05-30 01:02:53 PM

R.A.Danny: If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.


For the live of me, thought you said 'pervy to that information'.
 
2013-05-30 01:06:36 PM

DjangoStonereaver: R.A.Danny: If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.

For the live of me, thought you said 'pervy to that information'.


Twat are you going on about?
 
2013-05-30 01:07:47 PM

R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.

hence the leak investigation.

My point is that putting Rosen on the hot-seat for having info that just about any shmoe off the street can get their hands on is just silly.


Any shmoe off the street who had access to a leak in the government.  Now any shmoe would have had access after Rosen reported on it, but previous to that it was just Rosen's source.
 
2013-05-30 01:11:18 PM
You know what you do, fox news? You buy a tape recorder and record yourself for the next 24 hours..

//"fox news, you blowhard!"
 
2013-05-30 01:25:06 PM

James!: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.

hence the leak investigation.

My point is that putting Rosen on the hot-seat for having info that just about any shmoe off the street can get their hands on is just silly.

Any shmoe off the street who had access to a leak in the government.  Now any shmoe would have had access after Rosen reported on it, but previous to that it was just Rosen's source.


The press should be silenced, then?
 
2013-05-30 01:32:50 PM

R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.

hence the leak investigation.

My point is that putting Rosen on the hot-seat for having info that just about any shmoe off the street can get their hands on is just silly.


Yeah, that's not Rosen's problem that the government has someone leaking classified information. As much as I hate to defend a FoxNews reporter, he didn't do anything wrong.
 
2013-05-30 01:33:42 PM

Nabb1: The press should be silenced, then?


Who said that?
 
2013-05-30 01:36:39 PM

James!: Nabb1: The press should be silenced, then?

Who said that?


You are blaming Rosen for the leaked information becoming public.  It could have been any reporter, but the source of the leak chose him.  Without the source of the leak, however, Rosen has nothing to report.  Why put the blame on Rosen?  Why make him an alleged "co-conspirator"?
 
2013-05-30 01:40:07 PM

Nabb1: You are blaming Rosen for the leaked information becoming public.  It could have been any reporter, but the source of the leak chose him.  Without the source of the leak, however, Rosen has nothing to report.  Why put the blame on Rosen?  Why make him an alleged "co-conspirator"?


reporters are privy to classified stuff all the time. it's their decision what to write about. he chose to blow a US source and possibly endanger lives.
 
2013-05-30 01:43:23 PM

Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The press should be silenced, then?

Who said that?

You are blaming Rosen for the leaked information becoming public.  It could have been any reporter, but the source of the leak chose him.  Without the source of the leak, however, Rosen has nothing to report.  Why put the blame on Rosen?  Why make him an alleged "co-conspirator"?


Did the leak choose Rosen or did Rosen find someone and convince them to leak.  I don't know, someone should investigate.
 
2013-05-30 01:43:36 PM

Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The press should be silenced, then?

Who said that?

You are blaming Rosen for the leaked information becoming public.  It could have been any reporter, but the source of the leak chose him.  Without the source of the leak, however, Rosen has nothing to report.  Why put the blame on Rosen?  Why make him an alleged "co-conspirator"?


His "crime" such as it is amounts to nothing more than poor word choice.  He should be referred for perhaps an internal investigation at Fox (not that they have that much integrity), inasmuch as his words maybe put a source in danger, but he shouldn't be silenced or treated as a criminal.

The person who leaked the info however, a different story.
 
2013-05-30 01:46:16 PM

FlashHarry: Nabb1: You are blaming Rosen for the leaked information becoming public.  It could have been any reporter, but the source of the leak chose him.  Without the source of the leak, however, Rosen has nothing to report.  Why put the blame on Rosen?  Why make him an alleged "co-conspirator"?

reporters are privy to classified stuff all the time. it's their decision what to write about. he chose to blow a US source and possibly endanger lives.


Irresponsible, yes?  But not criminal.
 
2013-05-30 01:47:10 PM

James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The press should be silenced, then?

Who said that?

You are blaming Rosen for the leaked information becoming public.  It could have been any reporter, but the source of the leak chose him.  Without the source of the leak, however, Rosen has nothing to report.  Why put the blame on Rosen?  Why make him an alleged "co-conspirator"?

Did the leak choose Rosen or did Rosen find someone and convince them to leak.  I don't know, someone should investigate.


It's criminal for a reporter to convince a source to divulge information?  How so?
 
2013-05-30 01:50:33 PM

Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The press should be silenced, then?

Who said that?

You are blaming Rosen for the leaked information becoming public.  It could have been any reporter, but the source of the leak chose him.  Without the source of the leak, however, Rosen has nothing to report.  Why put the blame on Rosen?  Why make him an alleged "co-conspirator"?

Did the leak choose Rosen or did Rosen find someone and convince them to leak.  I don't know, someone should investigate.

It's criminal for a reporter to convince a source to divulge information?  How so?


Did I say it was criminal?
 
2013-05-30 01:55:08 PM

Nabb1: James!: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.

hence the leak investigation.

My point is that putting Rosen on the hot-seat for having info that just about any shmoe off the street can get their hands on is just silly.

Any shmoe off the street who had access to a leak in the government.  Now any shmoe would have had access after Rosen reported on it, but previous to that it was just Rosen's source.

The press should be silenced, then?


no but they should not publish classified intelligence that would endanger people. I'm okay with them exposing govt corruption etc..that should be protected under a shield law. but they can't just publish state secrets that endangers assets in the field or the lives of soldiers or citizens. the info he reported on had no value to the public at large. only to his right wing network so they could say "Obama's sanctions are making you less safe"
 
2013-05-30 01:55:13 PM

James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The press should be silenced, then?

Who said that?

You are blaming Rosen for the leaked information becoming public.  It could have been any reporter, but the source of the leak chose him.  Without the source of the leak, however, Rosen has nothing to report.  Why put the blame on Rosen?  Why make him an alleged "co-conspirator"?

Did the leak choose Rosen or did Rosen find someone and convince them to leak.  I don't know, someone should investigate.

It's criminal for a reporter to convince a source to divulge information?  How so?

Did I say it was criminal?


The DOJ did more than investigate the leak and look at Rosen.  They considered him a "co-conspirator" and went after him as though he were a criminal.  That's what angered so many in the media, including the editorial board at the New York Times, which excoriated Holder in an editorial published last week.
 
2013-05-30 01:56:23 PM

Hobodeluxe: Nabb1: James!: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.

hence the leak investigation.

My point is that putting Rosen on the hot-seat for having info that just about any shmoe off the street can get their hands on is just silly.

Any shmoe off the street who had access to a leak in the government.  Now any shmoe would have had access after Rosen reported on it, but previous to that it was just Rosen's source.

The press should be silenced, then?

no but they should not publish classified intelligence that would endanger people. I'm okay with them exposing govt corruption etc..that should be protected under a shield law. but they can't just publish state secrets that endangers assets in the field or the lives of soldiers or citizens. the info he reported on had no value to the public at large. only to his right wing network so they could say "Obama's sanctions are making you less safe"


You would use subjective criteria for determining whether the press should be protected in the case of leaks of sensitive information?  Do you not see the inherent danger in that?  Where do you draw the line?
 
2013-05-30 01:56:27 PM

Nabb1: You are blaming Rosen for the leaked information becoming public. It could have been any reporter, but the source of the leak chose him. Without the source of the leak, however, Rosen has nothing to report. Why put the blame on Rosen?


Rosen sought out an asset in the State Dept. who had access to classified materials.  Rosen groomed the asset, set up communications channels and a code system and actively solicited his source for information.

This is a blatantly obvious case of espionage.  Both Rosen and his source belong in federal prison.
 
2013-05-30 01:57:16 PM

Nabb1: The DOJ did more than investigate the leak and look at Rosen. They considered him a "co-conspirator" and went after him as though he were a criminal. That's what angered so many in the media, including the editorial board at the New York Times, which excoriated Holder in an editorial published last week.


if you cover for a leaker that has broken the law and passed classified intelligence info then yes you are a co-conspirator. much like Assange.
 
2013-05-30 01:59:49 PM

Hobodeluxe: Nabb1: The DOJ did more than investigate the leak and look at Rosen. They considered him a "co-conspirator" and went after him as though he were a criminal. That's what angered so many in the media, including the editorial board at the New York Times, which excoriated Holder in an editorial published last week.

if you cover for a leaker that has broken the law and passed classified intelligence info then yes you are a co-conspirator. much like Assange.


Assange is not a co-conspirator.  He's a weasel with a huge case of megalomania, but Wikileaks does not, IMO, do anything illegal.  People who leak information by way of Wikileaks may very well be, and sometimes are, criminals, such as Bradley Manning, but I do not think Wikileaks is a criminal conspiracy.  Reporters have a long history of protecting their sources.  Many have spent time in jail to protect sources.
 
2013-05-30 02:00:34 PM

Nabb1: Hobodeluxe: Nabb1: James!: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: If Rosen was privy to that information, then there was already a problem.

hence the leak investigation.

My point is that putting Rosen on the hot-seat for having info that just about any shmoe off the street can get their hands on is just silly.

Any shmoe off the street who had access to a leak in the government.  Now any shmoe would have had access after Rosen reported on it, but previous to that it was just Rosen's source.

The press should be silenced, then?

no but they should not publish classified intelligence that would endanger people. I'm okay with them exposing govt corruption etc..that should be protected under a shield law. but they can't just publish state secrets that endangers assets in the field or the lives of soldiers or citizens. the info he reported on had no value to the public at large. only to his right wing network so they could say "Obama's sanctions are making you less safe"

You would use subjective criteria for determining whether the press should be protected in the case of leaks of sensitive information?  Do you not see the inherent danger in that?  Where do you draw the line?


What's the inherent danger in prosecuting someone for a criminal act? I thought that's what the government was supposed to do? As with all freedoms there are limits. In this case, Rosen endangered lives with his reporting and he should have been investigated as he was.
 
2013-05-30 02:00:38 PM

Nabb1: The DOJ did more than investigate the leak and look at Rosen.  They considered him a "co-conspirator" and went after him as though he were a criminal.  That's what angered so many in the media, including the editorial board at the New York Times, which excoriated Holder in an editorial published last week.


Ooo the NYT!? Well let me completely change my opinions.

Rosen was a known point of contact to a government leak who was giving out classified information. The DOJ requested and recieved warrants to search his emails and phone records.  Through that the government discovered the leak and that dude is in jail.  Rosen as far as I can tell is still free to write about whatever he wants.
 
2013-05-30 02:02:51 PM

Nabb1: You would use subjective criteria for determining whether the press should be protected in the case of leaks of sensitive information? Do you not see the inherent danger in that? Where do you draw the line?


well we have several govt agencies that this would have to clear. are you saying that we can't trust the system of checks and balances? if so then let's just not have any secrets at all. let's drop all our firewalls and our panties and bend over. or had you rather Roger Ailes decides what should and should not be reported?  I'm sure he would be objective.
 
2013-05-30 02:04:45 PM

James!: Nabb1: The DOJ did more than investigate the leak and look at Rosen.  They considered him a "co-conspirator" and went after him as though he were a criminal.  That's what angered so many in the media, including the editorial board at the New York Times, which excoriated Holder in an editorial published last week.

Ooo the NYT!? Well let me completely change my opinions.

Rosen was a known point of contact to a government leak who was giving out classified information. The DOJ requested and recieved warrants to search his emails and phone records.  Through that the government discovered the leak and that dude is in jail.  Rosen as far as I can tell is still free to write about whatever he wants.


Holder had to go to three different judges to get the warrants because the first two turned him down.  The effect of this is that by targeting journalists, it makes sources less likely to talk to them across the board.  Many reporters have already said they have had hesitance in talking to sources, and sources have been reluctant to talk as freely.  Chuck Todd is one who recently made that complaint.  There is a very real, I believe, intent in the culture and philosophy of Holder's DOJ to lean hard on the press to control leaks.  No administrations like leaks.  This is the first one to get as aggressive with the press as they have, at least since Nixon.
 
2013-05-30 02:06:06 PM
Nixon! Everybody drink!
 
2013-05-30 02:06:42 PM

Hobodeluxe: Nabb1: You would use subjective criteria for determining whether the press should be protected in the case of leaks of sensitive information? Do you not see the inherent danger in that? Where do you draw the line?

well we have several govt agencies that this would have to clear. are you saying that we can't trust the system of checks and balances? if so then let's just not have any secrets at all. let's drop all our firewalls and our panties and bend over. or had you rather Roger Ailes decides what should and should not be reported?  I'm sure he would be objective.


I would rather have people in the press decide what gets reported than the Attorney General, yes.  And the press is part of the checks and balances of power in our system.  Secrets are a necessary evil in the business of governing, I suppose, but it is incumbent upon the government to do what it needs to do to maintain secrecy.  The press does not and should not have any legal duty to do that for the government.  Morally, ethically - those are entirely different matters.
 
2013-05-30 02:07:19 PM

James!: Nixon! Everybody drink!


Hey, if the shoe fits, than lace that bad boy up and wear it.
 
2013-05-30 02:09:28 PM

Nabb1: I would rather have people in the press decide what gets reported than the Attorney General, yes. And the press is part of the checks and balances of power in our system. Secrets are a necessary evil in the business of governing, I suppose, but it is incumbent upon the government to do what it needs to do to maintain secrecy. The press does not and should not have any legal duty to do that for the government. Morally, ethically - those are entirely different matters


so let me ask you. do you think that this piece of information about N Korea had any value to the public at large?  and if so what?
 
2013-05-30 02:09:48 PM

Nabb1: James!: Nixon! Everybody drink!

Hey, if the shoe fits, than lace that bad boy up and wear it.


At this point you're cutting off toes to hammer that shoe on.

I know you have a hard-on about this, but we're going around in the same stupid circle over and over again and I'm bored with it.  The leak is in jail, Rosen is free and the road ahead is neither sloped nor slippery.
 
2013-05-30 02:10:12 PM
Dear douchebags:
They're not going after Rosen and ignoring the person who gave him the info.  They're going after Rosen so they can farkING FIND OUT WHO GAVE HIM THE INFO.
 
2013-05-30 02:12:57 PM
I think it's safe to label Fox News "enemy media" like they wanted to do to Al-Jazeera .
 
2013-05-30 02:15:36 PM

Nabb1: I would rather have people in the press decide what gets reported than the Attorney General, yes


well hell let's just let Roger Ailes tap Obama's phone and have someone follow him around to take notes on all his meetings then. I trust Roger to do what is right for the country. Might as well let a representative for Al Jazeera have unfettered access too. Why even bother with security clearances and encryption?
 
2013-05-30 02:21:40 PM
TFA: ...he could have written his story without revealing that nugget about the inside source.

So if he hadn't mentioned that the information had a source, the North Koreans never would have guessed?
 
2013-05-30 02:22:32 PM

Hobodeluxe: Nabb1: I would rather have people in the press decide what gets reported than the Attorney General, yes. And the press is part of the checks and balances of power in our system. Secrets are a necessary evil in the business of governing, I suppose, but it is incumbent upon the government to do what it needs to do to maintain secrecy. The press does not and should not have any legal duty to do that for the government. Morally, ethically - those are entirely different matters

so let me ask you. do you think that this piece of information about N Korea had any value to the public at large?  and if so what?


Isn't it the up to the public to decide what information about its government is valuable and what is not?  Or do think it is solely up to the government to decide what the people should know and when.

Hobodeluxe: Nabb1: I would rather have people in the press decide what gets reported than the Attorney General, yes

well hell let's just let Roger Ailes tap Obama's phone and have someone follow him around to take notes on all his meetings then. I trust Roger to do what is right for the country. Might as well let a representative for Al Jazeera have unfettered access too. Why even bother with security clearances and encryption?


I don't care about Roger Ailes.  Roger Ailes does not control the entirety of the press in this country.  I don't like FOXNews.  I loathe it, truth be told, but the issue is much larger than Roger Ailes and FOXNews.  And I have no problem with security codes and encryption, but the government employees and agents who are entrusted with access to that information agree that they will, under penalty of law, keep certain information secret going into it.  Journalists are not so bound by those agreements.
 
2013-05-30 02:28:54 PM

LiberalWeenie: TFA: ...he could have written his story without revealing that nugget about the inside source.

So if he hadn't mentioned that the information had a source, the North Koreans never would have guessed?


That's what I'm wondering. So if every story ends with "according to a source inside North Korea" we could conceivably wipe out every NK asset the CIA has.
 
2013-05-30 02:29:39 PM
Wasn't Michele Bachmann on the Intelligence Committee, and now she is out, hmmm... no never mind I'm tired.
 
2013-05-30 02:32:06 PM

LiberalWeenie: So if he hadn't mentioned that the information had a source, the North Koreans never would have guessed?


There's a difference between guessing and confirming.  With intel games with hostile governments, you probably don't want to give them freebies.

STILL wish they'd hunt down and shoot the Congressman who leaked to the press in the 90's that we had Osama Bin Laden's satellite phone tapped.
 
2013-05-30 02:44:06 PM

HotWingConspiracy: I think it's safe to label Fox News "enemy media" like they wanted to do to Al-Jazeera .


well, they are actively trying to destroy america, so i'd say you have a point.
 
2013-05-30 03:01:34 PM

Nabb1: Journalists are not so bound by those agreements.


But should it be totally fine for them to push, ply and petition people to break those agreements? I'm not so sure.

"X is illegal, but if you want to try your damnedest to get someone else to commit X...well, we just have to look the other way."

We do have laws against solicitation and conspiracy. I don't think it's inappropriate for some kind of investigation to take place in order to find the truth of what happened.
 
2013-05-30 03:03:58 PM
O'Reilly should send out his hit team to follow Rosen around, asking him how he feels, endangering American lives...
 
2013-05-30 03:13:53 PM

Nabb1: The effect of this is that by targeting journalists, it makes sources less likely to talk to them across the board.


I also find it shocking that the government would want to discourage security leaks.
 
2013-05-30 03:16:07 PM

Nabb1: nd sources have been reluctant to talk as freely


so going after leakers has stopped people leaking. seems like the plan works.
 
2013-05-30 03:18:42 PM

Nabb1: Hobodeluxe: Nabb1: The DOJ did more than investigate the leak and look at Rosen. They considered him a "co-conspirator" and went after him as though he were a criminal. That's what angered so many in the media, including the editorial board at the New York Times, which excoriated Holder in an editorial published last week.

if you cover for a leaker that has broken the law and passed classified intelligence info then yes you are a co-conspirator. much like Assange.

Assange is not a co-conspirator.  He's a weasel with a huge case of megalomania, but Wikileaks does not, IMO, do anything illegal.  People who leak information by way of Wikileaks may very well be, and sometimes are, criminals, such as Bradley Manning, but I do not think Wikileaks is a criminal conspiracy.  Reporters have a long history of protecting their sources.  Many have spent time in jail to protect sources.

 
2013-05-30 03:19:13 PM

qorkfiend: Nabb1: The effect of this is that by targeting journalists, it makes sources less likely to talk to them across the board.

I also find it shocking that the government would want to discourage security leaks.


TrollingForColumbine: Nabb1: nd sources have been reluctant to talk as freely

so going after leakers has stopped people leaking. seems like the plan works.


I'm glad you guys think this is alright.  That way, one day, when a Republican is in the White House, and he or she has just as much love for authoritarianism as this President has, you'll think everything is just perfectly okay.
 
2013-05-30 03:19:48 PM

Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The press should be silenced, then?

Who said that?

You are blaming Rosen for the leaked information becoming public.  It could have been any reporter, but the source of the leak chose him.  Without the source of the leak, however, Rosen has nothing to report.  Why put the blame on Rosen?  Why make him an alleged "co-conspirator"?

Did the leak choose Rosen or did Rosen find someone and convince them to leak.  I don't know, someone should investigate.

It's criminal for a reporter to convince a source to divulge information?  How so?

Did I say it was criminal?

The DOJ did more than investigate the leak and look at Rosen.  They considered him a "co-conspirator" and went after him as though he were a criminal.  That's what angered so many in the media, including the editorial board at the New York Times, which excoriated Holder in an editorial published last week.


Who are you quoting "co-conspirator" from?
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report