Times Delay

[vakkotaur]

The current Big Story is about wiretapping with one end of the conversation being in the U.S.A. and whether or not such wiretapping is legal. But the wiretapping itself isn't what I'm on about just now. What I wonder about is the reporting of it, or more specifically the delayed reporting of it.

The New York Times broke the story. Newspapers

Comments

[altivo]

I can imagine a number of reasons, fear of legal repercussions being the foremost. The Patriot Act is extremely verbose and difficult to interpret. However, as an example, if the FBI demanded library user records from me, whether they were actually delivered or not, I am forbidden to tell anyone that the demand was made, whether it was met, or anything about it.

However, if that information were to come out in court or be otherwise released, then I could talk about it.

(As you are no doubt aware, I'm probably well to the left of your own political position. But still, the NYT probably chose not to publish what they had because it would put them in a tenuous legal situation. Now that the cat is out of the bag, things are different. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened with respect to the press.)

[nefaria]

I have an entirely different take on this matter.

The President wanted to do something which was technically illegal in the interest of national security. He consulted Congress to get their permission (Congress, being the legislative body, can grant exceptions to the rules in special cases).

I'm more worried about people in Congress leaking vital national security information to the media and the media broadcasting it for the world to see. We could have caught Osama bin Laden long ago, and probably prevented a war, if the media hadn't proclaimed that we were tracking bin Laden because of the brand of cell phone he was using.

[jcw_da_dmg]

Perhaps the NYT was giving the powers-that-be the benefit of the doubt for a while.