Because it's so called entitlement is causing danger to human beings. No one is going to put up with that. Why not hand classified information regarding al Qaeda to the terrorist network itself? Seriously. Once any bit of information is published it is fair game for anyone.
If the journalists of the USA or any other country are going to try to tell me that I have to be scared skinny because the Associated Press can't expose every national security issue that exists, they have another thing coming.
The Associated Press shot itself in the foot by complaining about the probe. It is just too bad informants now believe they don't have blanket permission to expose every bit of confidential information within the government. It was the AP that exposed the investigation, not the government. At the heart of this complaint is a huge insult to the intelligence network. The AP took the WRONG complaint to the public.
When it comes to privacy issues, part of what is occurring in the USA is that the FBI can't necessarily do what the CIA does because they have to be somewhat more cautious about citizens and legal immigrants. The problem in Boston was the 'threat level tolerance' within the USA, sufficient investigators and when exactly a law enforcement agency is allowed to move against a person.
The Boston Bombing is a prime example of how the government is not allowed to drill into the lives of Americans to find out what is occurring in order to stop violence. It has not only been a problem in Boston, but, in New York. More than even New York, this has occurred repeatedly in the USA where other instances in which violence was not discovered but averted for other reasons such as incompetence in building the bomb in the first place.
Now, having incompetent information on the internet regarding building bombs is a legitimate method of stopping those that cannot carry out a death plot against strangers, but, I don't believe that is what has been occurring.
If the citizens of The West want to stop these instances of violence there is a choice to be made. That choice involves privacy rights and what a populous will tolerate to stop violence within their society. I mean as far as I am concerned the entire idea that people have to have a personal method to stop their government from dictatorship is hideous. If an electorate is going to elect a dictator like Bush or Cheney then it is decided they will be dictated to and isn't it that which the Right Wing is sincerely about anyway? Dictating to the populous of the USA. They aren't interested in governing and refuse to understand how a real economy works and why education and compassion are more than simply 'nice ideas.' The Right Wing wants to tell/dictate to the entire country what is best for them while they shutdown unions and end accountability by Wall Street.
So, when journalists try to tell me I have to be fearful of my government when my government was actively taking care of my safety while it steps on journalists toes, too bad. Because it is perfectly fine for Wall Street to probe my personal information and choices to exploit me for profits, but, it isn't possible for the USA government to do the same thing to protect me. There is something wrong within that dynamic that has to change. I have a feeling it has to do with spending, personnel and the horror of still yet more government bureaucracy. If that is the case we all know that won't happen with the Republicans dominating the House.
When I examine the impetus to the Boston Bombing and the idea of privacy, in all honesty there are times I believe Tamerlin Tsarnaev was actually radicalized because he was listed with the FBI due to a report from Russia. It was after he realized he could not achieve in boxing or become a citizen in the USA due to being listed with the FBI that he changed his path for success and sought identification with extremism. In fact there is a possibility our struggle with control over the individual may be causing radicalization rather than controlling it. The facts are there. He radicalized when his path to success was ended due to his listing with the FBI. I think that needs to be looked at for what it actually is as well.
But, in regard to what occurred with the Associated Press, to think they can be facilitated to do as they please with classified information so they can have a leg up on embarrassing a President is out of question.
What the Associated Press believes it did was to bring about a stark reality about a President that didn't parse his words enough or practice 'limited political' speech to keywords. That isn't what they did. There is no hero status for the AP in this instance. There was no big exposure to a run for re-election because in fact the administration was doing it's job. The CIA was protecting people at a time when there was a global event taking place, the Olympics. Gee whiz, I think global events might attract those inclined to kill innocent people in large numbers.
The CIA was actively carrying out exactly what they were paid to do. They stopped a bomb plot that would kill people. They didn't do anything wrong and the fact of the matter is the intelligence worked and people were safe. That is all we can hope for and dream of regardless of whom the bad guys were or are. I am sure there are more plots where that one came from, too. Hateful people willing to kill are not under microscopes. Heck, we have an entire nation with guns willing to do exactly that.
The AP didn't appreciate the work of the CIA, they instead focused on the fact President Obama stated terrorism was abating or whatever the words were and this terrorists was a prime example of a lie. It was completely irrelevant in the face of the extent of the leak. No one at the AP saw or can today see that?
The Associated Press was attempting to impact an election when they had no reason to do so. The Associated Press was playing with words. People were safe. The AP didn't discover a terrorist plotting to kill innocent people that the intelligence community had no clue about. There was NO story there. It was drummed up by the AP to attack a President for words in a speech. Really? To this extent?
When Romney was exposed for his 47% comment it was a revelation, but, the exposure had nothing to do with national security or the safety of people. It was an act of conscience by a person reliant on the very job that facilitated the exposure. There is a huge difference between what occurred with Mr. Romney and what occurred at the time of the Olympics.
There was absolutely no sound basis for the AP to do what they did. There was no measuring the danger in the overall picture by the AP. The bad guy was caught and the plot disarmed at a time when governments were expecting it; the Olympics. That is the best anyone can hope for in this world. So the Associated Press believed I had to change my vote because the system worked? I don't think so.
Now, if the AP is angry about the Justice Department proceeding without first being accountable to them, well that is a matter of trust and judgement. Evidently, when the DOJ looked at the breach of national security they disregarded the idea the AP could be trusted for anything including providing information they were seeking. I don't blame them. Obviously I don't blame them.
The problem here is not with the government. It is the fact the AP took the letter sent to them to the public. The Associated Press should have pursued different avenues without compromising their priority for 'source information.' If there is a problem with sources feeling insecure that is the Press's doing.
As far as the DOJ probe itself, I don't see any abuse. If this was occurring repeatedly and without the brevity these circumstances carry, then it might be of concern, but, that isn't the case.
At this point the damage the AP did to itself and the news industry is obvious. Exposing the probe to the public to dissolve their liability or potential criminal content was not a good management call. There is still the issue of how the government will proceed and how this will resolve in accountability by the Press for a story the DOJ is calling the worst leak they have ever witnessed. I suggest the Associated Press prepare for that reality.
It isn't as though no one appreciates journalists. I realize journalism struggles to survive with the enabling of individuals to carry out information technology from an iPhone, but, get for real here. I think the profession needs to get back to basics.
If journalists didn't report about the bomb incident in NYC I would not have known about it. I think journalists are imagineering a role in society they rightfully don't have and should not have. The reporting is important, but, probing the government for classified information is not really the place for the Press. I would expect the leaders of media companies like the AP to know that better than anyone else, frankly.
It will be a sad day when all that is available to the public is FOX News or the new Koch Brothers' network. I don't want journalism to fail or disappear. Not at all. I think the profession needs to reclaim it's dignity and recapture it's place without insulting national security to the extent it did in this instance.
If the journalists of the USA or any other country are going to try to tell me that I have to be scared skinny because the Associated Press can't expose every national security issue that exists, they have another thing coming.
The Associated Press shot itself in the foot by complaining about the probe. It is just too bad informants now believe they don't have blanket permission to expose every bit of confidential information within the government. It was the AP that exposed the investigation, not the government. At the heart of this complaint is a huge insult to the intelligence network. The AP took the WRONG complaint to the public.
When it comes to privacy issues, part of what is occurring in the USA is that the FBI can't necessarily do what the CIA does because they have to be somewhat more cautious about citizens and legal immigrants. The problem in Boston was the 'threat level tolerance' within the USA, sufficient investigators and when exactly a law enforcement agency is allowed to move against a person.
The Boston Bombing is a prime example of how the government is not allowed to drill into the lives of Americans to find out what is occurring in order to stop violence. It has not only been a problem in Boston, but, in New York. More than even New York, this has occurred repeatedly in the USA where other instances in which violence was not discovered but averted for other reasons such as incompetence in building the bomb in the first place.
Now, having incompetent information on the internet regarding building bombs is a legitimate method of stopping those that cannot carry out a death plot against strangers, but, I don't believe that is what has been occurring.
If the citizens of The West want to stop these instances of violence there is a choice to be made. That choice involves privacy rights and what a populous will tolerate to stop violence within their society. I mean as far as I am concerned the entire idea that people have to have a personal method to stop their government from dictatorship is hideous. If an electorate is going to elect a dictator like Bush or Cheney then it is decided they will be dictated to and isn't it that which the Right Wing is sincerely about anyway? Dictating to the populous of the USA. They aren't interested in governing and refuse to understand how a real economy works and why education and compassion are more than simply 'nice ideas.' The Right Wing wants to tell/dictate to the entire country what is best for them while they shutdown unions and end accountability by Wall Street.
So, when journalists try to tell me I have to be fearful of my government when my government was actively taking care of my safety while it steps on journalists toes, too bad. Because it is perfectly fine for Wall Street to probe my personal information and choices to exploit me for profits, but, it isn't possible for the USA government to do the same thing to protect me. There is something wrong within that dynamic that has to change. I have a feeling it has to do with spending, personnel and the horror of still yet more government bureaucracy. If that is the case we all know that won't happen with the Republicans dominating the House.
When I examine the impetus to the Boston Bombing and the idea of privacy, in all honesty there are times I believe Tamerlin Tsarnaev was actually radicalized because he was listed with the FBI due to a report from Russia. It was after he realized he could not achieve in boxing or become a citizen in the USA due to being listed with the FBI that he changed his path for success and sought identification with extremism. In fact there is a possibility our struggle with control over the individual may be causing radicalization rather than controlling it. The facts are there. He radicalized when his path to success was ended due to his listing with the FBI. I think that needs to be looked at for what it actually is as well.
But, in regard to what occurred with the Associated Press, to think they can be facilitated to do as they please with classified information so they can have a leg up on embarrassing a President is out of question.
What the Associated Press believes it did was to bring about a stark reality about a President that didn't parse his words enough or practice 'limited political' speech to keywords. That isn't what they did. There is no hero status for the AP in this instance. There was no big exposure to a run for re-election because in fact the administration was doing it's job. The CIA was protecting people at a time when there was a global event taking place, the Olympics. Gee whiz, I think global events might attract those inclined to kill innocent people in large numbers.
The CIA was actively carrying out exactly what they were paid to do. They stopped a bomb plot that would kill people. They didn't do anything wrong and the fact of the matter is the intelligence worked and people were safe. That is all we can hope for and dream of regardless of whom the bad guys were or are. I am sure there are more plots where that one came from, too. Hateful people willing to kill are not under microscopes. Heck, we have an entire nation with guns willing to do exactly that.
The AP didn't appreciate the work of the CIA, they instead focused on the fact President Obama stated terrorism was abating or whatever the words were and this terrorists was a prime example of a lie. It was completely irrelevant in the face of the extent of the leak. No one at the AP saw or can today see that?
The Associated Press was attempting to impact an election when they had no reason to do so. The Associated Press was playing with words. People were safe. The AP didn't discover a terrorist plotting to kill innocent people that the intelligence community had no clue about. There was NO story there. It was drummed up by the AP to attack a President for words in a speech. Really? To this extent?
When Romney was exposed for his 47% comment it was a revelation, but, the exposure had nothing to do with national security or the safety of people. It was an act of conscience by a person reliant on the very job that facilitated the exposure. There is a huge difference between what occurred with Mr. Romney and what occurred at the time of the Olympics.
There was absolutely no sound basis for the AP to do what they did. There was no measuring the danger in the overall picture by the AP. The bad guy was caught and the plot disarmed at a time when governments were expecting it; the Olympics. That is the best anyone can hope for in this world. So the Associated Press believed I had to change my vote because the system worked? I don't think so.
Now, if the AP is angry about the Justice Department proceeding without first being accountable to them, well that is a matter of trust and judgement. Evidently, when the DOJ looked at the breach of national security they disregarded the idea the AP could be trusted for anything including providing information they were seeking. I don't blame them. Obviously I don't blame them.
The problem here is not with the government. It is the fact the AP took the letter sent to them to the public. The Associated Press should have pursued different avenues without compromising their priority for 'source information.' If there is a problem with sources feeling insecure that is the Press's doing.
As far as the DOJ probe itself, I don't see any abuse. If this was occurring repeatedly and without the brevity these circumstances carry, then it might be of concern, but, that isn't the case.
At this point the damage the AP did to itself and the news industry is obvious. Exposing the probe to the public to dissolve their liability or potential criminal content was not a good management call. There is still the issue of how the government will proceed and how this will resolve in accountability by the Press for a story the DOJ is calling the worst leak they have ever witnessed. I suggest the Associated Press prepare for that reality.
It isn't as though no one appreciates journalists. I realize journalism struggles to survive with the enabling of individuals to carry out information technology from an iPhone, but, get for real here. I think the profession needs to get back to basics.
If journalists didn't report about the bomb incident in NYC I would not have known about it. I think journalists are imagineering a role in society they rightfully don't have and should not have. The reporting is important, but, probing the government for classified information is not really the place for the Press. I would expect the leaders of media companies like the AP to know that better than anyone else, frankly.
It will be a sad day when all that is available to the public is FOX News or the new Koch Brothers' network. I don't want journalism to fail or disappear. Not at all. I think the profession needs to reclaim it's dignity and recapture it's place without insulting national security to the extent it did in this instance.
