Comments on New York Times Compromises Cheney and Rumsfeld’s Personal Safety

Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming RevolutionAdd a commentGo to New York Times Compromises Cheney and Rumsfeld’s Personal Safety

Even so . . .
This begs the question of why it should be publicized in the first place.

posted by WriterofLight on July 17, 2006 at 7:38 PM | link to this | reply

I think
that the photo does not divulge the location of the camera. It is right there in the picture for anyone to see and just like any other celebrity residence. the terrorists know where these men are.
If a journalist can find out this information, many others can too. 

posted by Azur on July 10, 2006 at 3:16 AM | link to this | reply

Good point. However . . .

Tourist trade articles typically do not divulge the location of security cameras. What is more, the timing is extremely suspect, given the al Qaeda Times' open hostility towards the Bush administration. Think about it, Azur - there are people, terrorists and otherwise, who want nothing more than to put the hit on Bush, Cheney, Rusmfeld and anyone else who is leading the war against terror. Private information about these leaders has no place in the news media under those circumstances. It is no different than telling the Nazis about the location of and security at Roosevelt's Little White House in Georgia during World War II.

As for my calling the New York Times the al Qaeda Times, the name fits because they seem more intent on informing the terrorists of our efforts to capture and eliminate them than they are in protecting our own people.  

 

posted by WriterofLight on July 9, 2006 at 7:19 PM | link to this | reply

WriterofLight, the story did not run bank details etc
 so I don't think that is the issue. These kinds of features run all the time about public figures and  movie stars and people can't get enough of them.  People buy papers for them.  As for "lunatics" who knows  if something they glimpsed in a paper or something in their childhood sparked them? We cannot let a few lunatics determine everything we say and do. Then they win twice over.

I am not sure why you refer to it as The Al-Qaeda Times.  The story set out to inform the American public. I don't see a problem with terror finance story.  It reported on the existence of the program and raised the gray areas in relation to the international banking and finance sectors.  In reality most points raised in the story would be not be of interest outside of those sectors. 

posted by Azur on July 2, 2006 at 8:07 PM | link to this | reply

Welcome, Azur!

Many thanks for commenting. You have a good point, but it doesn't change the fact that  the al Qaeda Times had no business divulging any of this. You don't know what some lunatic will do with the information.

Let's look at it this way. Would you have any objection to a major news outlet, preferably in your own area, disclosing such sensitive pesonal information about you? If personal privacy is not such a concern, then how about telling us all your real name, your address, your social security number and any and all bank acocunt numbers?

posted by WriterofLight on July 2, 2006 at 7:16 PM | link to this | reply

Actually that's a bit backwards......
Terrorists don't have to spend millions on gathering intelligence.........when they can get the information for the price of a years subscription to the NYTimes.........

posted by Corbin_Dallas on July 2, 2006 at 5:18 AM | link to this | reply

That article will have no impact on their safety
Terrorists don't need to wait for the NYTimes to tell them where something is.  Any newspaper in the world could publish the financial story and as much as he'd might like to Bush can't oversee the world's media. If we ever get to that day when politicians decide what can appear in the papers then we will be far further than the truth and light than we are now

posted by Azur on June 30, 2006 at 10:09 PM | link to this | reply

Oh geez!
That's always the way to show responsible media.  This sounds like my child who will on occasion with her brother do something intentionally to him because he did ABC or vise versa.  I don't tolerate that behavior in my children!

posted by bel_1965 on June 30, 2006 at 9:48 PM | link to this | reply