Redstate

source should be able to protect a source who committed a possible crime.

I think the administration has turned a blind eye all too often to these leakers, and to some degree have reaped what they have sown, but it isn't too late to act.  The administration needs to aggressively seek the leakers, charge them, fire them, and send them to jail where warranted.

If the reporters refuse to give up the sources, then lock them up and throw away the key until they do.

they didn't reveal that the motion activated grenade launcher is right next to the camera.

Now if we can only get a couple of the nyt reporters to do some in person investigation.

(I know, I posted this in the open thread, but it looks better here.)

on Newsmax's website almost a year ago.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/5/171908.shtml

But the NYT KNOWS who they are.  Thats where you need to start.

One almost suspects. What do you mean almost?

For my money the Daily Kos is more credible than the NYT. At least Kos makes no attempt to conceal his attitudes.

.....when you need them.

We live in a nation of a free press, but that is not unfettered.  I do not remember ever learning a case in Con Law classes that said that the reporters and editors could not be held liable for what they print.  Sure the state cannot prevent them from publishing, but they can take action against those who make the choice to do so.

Disclosing national secrets is a criminal offense.  The AG and the US Attorneys should not only consider charges, but file charges against the individuals who participated in the publication of stories - th givernment employees that told the reporters, the reporters, the editors, and even Pinch himself.

And if the reporters don't want to give up their sources, send them to jail and keep them there until they talk.  And none of this Club Fed stuff - send them to a real prison.

... they know precisely what they are doing and are doing it 'malice aforethought.'

Sulzberger and Company have long since decided that this is an illegitimate administration and that have the right, no the responsibility, to destroy it.

or lack of same.  OTH, sometimes stories are prepared, or roughed out, and held along with file photos for an opportune or more timely usuage.

   Mine is a minor point though, we still don't know where Sulzberger lives and the long trail of malice towards the administration continues to spread, right to the front door so to speak.

gone into a full-out, sullen, sand-kicking pout at being chastized by real Americans with real concerns about security.

...I thought you were addressing an article from The Onion, then seeing that it was an actual article almost made me feel sick.  "Crossing the line" seems woefully insufficient for them anymore.

Let us stipulate that no serious, al-Qa'eda-style assassin would have trouble locating the residence of a prominent figure that he or she had been assigned to attack. Nor would such an assassin rely on the New York Times for reconnaissance.

That said, any country with 300 million people in it is going to have a few nuts. That is why it is considered poor form to publish personal data about prominent figures. There's always another John Hinckley out there looking to impress another Jodi Foster. Plus these days, every Western country seems to be plagued with amateur-night al-Qa'eda wannabes whose plots aren't quite as well thought out as Mr. bin Laden's.

No one is claiming that this information is classified. Real estate records are public everywhere in the United States. That's not the issue. The issue — as we have seen with government programs like Matrix and Total Information Awareness — is that the mere act of collecting, organizing, and presenting widely scattered bits of easily-obtained data creates a threat where none existed before.

You know and I know that for the next several weeks, the Secret Service is going to have to be on special alert in case some nut who saw this article has his voices tell him that taking out Cheney or Rumsfeld will stop the CIA from beaming their control rays at him. One almost suspects that this is exactly what the New York Times is hoping for.

This article was the act of immature, petulant churls who are abusing their position as a newspaper to cause trouble for people they don't like. If anyone gets hurt as a consequence of this, it will have been more than just an immature act.

"garden variety not too swift guy who doesnt have anything going on upstairs and no plans for the weeekend now has an idea and a map"

Just like the guys with nothing upstairs in the Sears Tower plot, right? This massive plot, but with no weapons, no materials, an empty warehouse, and one guy living in a tent, hellbent on forming an army of 7 and waging war against the US.

as well.

"Ironically, photos were taken with Secretary Rumsfeld's permission"

I'm quite sure he would have known what the pictures were for.

source

In their editorial explaining their rationale for publishing the banking-transaction story, the Times wrote:

The free press has a central place in the Constitution because it can provide information the public needs to make things right again.

Obviously, there were too many people who had been burdened by their ignorance of this information, and the Times is just doing its best to make things right again.  

No, it's not the exact same story without the picture. I defy you to find Cheney's house with Google Earth using the information in the WaPo article. If you can't find it within 2 minutes using the NYT article, you need to go to Google class.

we should extend the same protections to movie stars, actors, musicians, and others in the entertainment field. One simply has to turn on the tv and go to the newsstand to see and read about so-and-so's new baby, outfit, vacation home, honeymoon, etc.

Heck, look what happend to Princess Di. And stalkers. They're crazy too, right?

If this is the case, and we need to protect people's information from being published, then perhaps you'd like to start a diary, I'll help promote it, and in it together we can call for further congressional action to be taken that prevents everyone from being talked about in print, online, or anywhere in the media, ever again.

Including politicans. What say you?

together we can call for further congressional actio

The poster was calling for "discretion" and "courtesy." These are not available in any quantity from the U.S. Congress.

but this is such a classic right-left dialogue.

Joliphant: Editors aren't discreet and courteous, like they used to be.

Stand Strong: OK, let's make a law, then!

Yes. But I'll forgive you, this time.

I don't think anyone is going to go after the NYT for publishing this publically available information. I don't think it's prosecutable, represents a serious security risk, or is all that newsworthy.

But, after the revelation of a number of sensitive government programs, numerous hostile editorials directed at Rumsfeld and Cheney, and the general front-page-above-the-fold bias against Bush, Republicans, conservatives, and the rubes of red state America, it's just one more slap in the face from the NYT for everybody who is not already a member of their highbrow fancy left-wing club.

It's not just what was said, in other words, but who said it. And they're free to (metaphorically) spit in our face all day long. But let's call it what it is, shall we? It's just another in a series of ongoing rude hand gestures from the New York Times to the Bush admins, Republicans, and the folks who support them.

I believe that the recent Code Pink demonstrations were held in front of Rumsfeld's Washington DC home, not his vacation home.

of information of this nature, why not a concerted effort to scour the web for other sources of the same information and have it removed?

Let's suppose someone pulls an op on Cheney and both Cheney and the assassin survive. In interrogation, the assassin is questioned on where he got the information on Cheney's location and he says,

"Why, Google of course! I used Google to find info on Cheney and came across this WaPo article that spoke about his purchase in MD. Then, using Google Earth, I surveilled the general area for cover, approach, and escape paths. And from another WaPo article, I learned that when Cheney was looking to buy a house there, there was a convoy of black GMC trucks that seemed to always accompany his time in the town.

When I was ready to perform my mission, I rented a place in town, got friendly with the locals, and dropped subtle hints that I had heard the VP lived out here and how incredibly awesome that must be living in the same town with such an esteemed man.

The man behind the counter, he must've been 16 or so, told me he usually comes into town every 3rd Thursday afternoon to pick up 1 half pound of coffee, some fishing bait, and that he thought it was really neat, ya know, I mean...the vice president of the US lives in my town!, I remember him saying.

I paid for my coffee and made a point to come back on the 3rd thursday, where indeed, a convoy of black trucks came. Knowing I coudn't simply follow them, I began tracking where they came from by going farther and farther up the direction from where they came every 3rd Thursday until I eventually located the house by watching from a hidden location."

Sound unreasonable? Impossible? Did I just aid a terrorist reading this site by playing out this potential scenario? I don't think so.

Does presenting such a scenario to make a point, with regards to debating you on the topic of leaking information in the press, represent a national security risk now that I've already said it? Again, I don't think so. We are allowed to debate and put forth ideas to either understand or persuade the other party on our opinion, right?

So am I guilty of treason?

I know I may have just gotten a little off track, and yeah, perhaps the scenario is far-fetched. I await the labels of moonbat.

But now that I've posed it, I want to know. Do you believe that in discussing with you the topic of leaking information, I have just put the vice-president at risk for outlining a scenario some wacko reading this site might just see and go "Hmmmm.....?"

Two or three years ago REASON magazine published a unique cover on it's current issue for each individual subscriber. The cover showed an aerial photograph of the addressee's neighborhood with a circle superimposed around his dwelling. Their point was the availability of personal information in the computer era. Black helicopters perhaps? In my case the circle was applied to a neighbor. I would probably have survived a 500 lb bomb that shacked the indicated target. I wondered if all the designations were in error in some systematic way to minimize liability or was it just bad data? Are there no REASON subscribers/readers at the NYT? REDSTATE? It was a stunt that got my attention.

Washington Post, Sept. 2005. It's basically the same exact story, minus a picture of a birdhouse. Yet nobody proclaimed that the Washington Post was releasing personal information, or threatening national security, or even...gasp...being in league with the turrorists in a motivated, concerted, and calculated effort to bring down the administration.

I wouldn't personally like my information printed online. However, it's probably not that hard to find out, given the times we live in.

On the other hand, I'm not a prominent, famous, individual, let alone government official with highly trained security details, that comes with the territory of being a prominent, famous, individual. If you're prominent, expect the media to want exposes, interviews, and articles describing to a degree, the not-so-public side of life that we don't see. That's what allows us to remember that the public officials are regular people as well, and not just big, comfy, rich, popular, powerful folk who get to lounge around all day, not pay their taxes, do whatever they want, etc.

They're real people. The media helps dispell the myth that they're not. If someone can't handle that, then...they should get out of public life.

  What's the difference though, everybody knows where Cheney and Rumsfeld live, it's been widely known for years.

     Anyway that will be the line used along with "the people's right to know where administration officials sleep at night".

      We'll just have to find out where Sulzberger lives, I'm sure he won't mind.  Fairness, equality, and all that.

may give a wack job an idea he never had before.  Sees Cheney's address says that no good SOB lives around here?  I'll fix him but good!  I bet that is a real possibility.  Yea pros have no problems, and committed lunatics can find it out, but the garden variety not too swift guy who doesnt have anything going on upstairs and no plans for the weeekend now has an idea and a map.

to publish classified information, but it is a crime which is almost never prosecuted.

In our legal system, the defense is granted rights in a trial which would almost guarantee that even more classified information would be exposed in court, so the government usually chooses to cut its losses by not trying.

õ¿õ

And if the times editors and reporters give them up theres not alot that can be done. Thankfully if they do give up their sources they won't be getting leaks anymore.

After the leaks dry up we may see the amusing sight of the times trying to report the news or actually do investigative reporting. It should be something like watching someone com out of a coma after fifty years and trying to do gymnastics.

After the leaks dry up we may see...

...more stuff like today's 'travel' piece. These are people whose idea of a good time is, "Let's use our investigative skills to find out where our enemies live and publish pictures of their houses!"

When people in the blogosphere do this, we call them 'scum.'

You'd think the New York Times would be above this sort of thing. But apparently not. They've become the Clown Posse of the MSM.

Temper tantrum, or smug "We'll show them" attitude, in either case, an irresponsible -- but interesting! -- story.

Some of our political compatriots have suggested this story amounts to Times' retribution for criticism of the SWIFT story. That, I would seriously doubt.

A story in the travel section would usually have a lead time of several weeks, and given the amount of reporting and the photos, I guess this story probably got started sometime in May.

No, this story is independently irresponsible, evidence that foot-stamping liberalism invests the entire paper, travel section included.

The humor is how you perceived the argument.

Since when is, or was, ever, the media supposed to be discreet and courteous?

And my proposal for banding together in an effort to further secure people's privacy was sarcasm, and was more toned to make a point.

Everyone here is pointing fingers at the NYT for this article on the homes of Rumsfeld and Cheney, as if it's breaking news that nobody ever knew before.

When presented with the facts, the two main responses are A) the NYT is attempting to motivate a sinister assassination plot against two of our leaders and B) since A really isn't holding much water with anyone, the media shouldn't print this information since it's discourteous to make such a bold invasion into anybody's, let alone a politican's, personal life.

And as argument A continues, and we dig deeper, we learn more about the meaning behind it. The NYT, and the left of course, are co-conspirators in some vast ideological war upon their own country, seeking to overthrow both the current adminstration, as well as all of it's supporters. Heck, we might as well strap suicide vests to ourselves and start trampsing over to the nearest mega-church and blow ourselves up, just to show we won't stand for your religion-based, ideological attempts at, well...apparently, doing the same thing we're trying to do, too. Strip you of any power whatsoever, usurp complete dominance over this country, and drive out any beliefs you hold dear to yourself by imposing our own beliefs back onto you.

I mean, face it...isn't that what we're both trying to do now? Massively crush the opposition since we both feel the other is 100% wrong, all of the time? You might say no, but overall, your politics say yes, yes, yes. Just look at the rhetoric. Traitor, anti-American, aiding the enemy, becoming the enemy. And well, what do we all do to our enemies?

All together now! That's right, we crush them. We beat them, we kill them, we destroy them. Cuz gosh darnit, that's the American way!

Point B, about protecting people's personal lives, was raising the notion that since A didn't work out to well, and B at least sounds a little less harsh, well...perhaps someone ought to hold you to the idea that you take seriously invasions of people's privacy.

And if you do, at least hold the idea true at all times, not simly when it's your politician, or your blogger who's been outed, or otherwise had personal information exposed. Extend it to everyone who's subject to media scrutiny. If you object to the posting of Rumsfeld's and Cheney's residential information, based on the premise that you feel it's a discourteous and impolite invasion of privacy, then why would you not feel the exact same way towards bloggers, actors, musicians, artists, activists, etc?

Yet from the lack of any genuine response to actually take interest in the idea, which I didn't expect anyway, I see clearly that nobody took the idea of working together to try to promote some additional forms of protection of privacy seriously. This tells me you're either hypocrites, or simply see things one-sidedly in that, since it was Rumsfeld and Cheney whose information was published, you're angry and the Times is at fault.

Yet if tomorrow, the Times runs an identical story on The Clintons, would you care and display as much outrage for that publication? How would you respond? What, because they're currently not in the White House or otherwise taking part in running the show, it's no big deal that their personal info was published since the terrorists won't come after them?

Or is it because they're liberal, the terrorists actually like them and wouldn't want to harm them?

Seems to run against the idea that the terrorists want to kill all Americans, especially when high prominence targets make for great propaganda for those who commit such acts.

When I first read this ridiculous nonsense here yesterday morning, I thought it was hilarious. Almost thought it was satire. But as I read through the comments, I saw, once again, what lies beneath the surface of what I can only perceive as the mainstream conservative mindset.

The media is bad because it has a liberal agenda and is out to destroy this administration. So what does that make them? The enemy. An enemy on par with terrorists, and of course, your token liberal traitor too.

What really made me angry, however, was when conservative bloggers started posting the name, address, phone numbers, and email address of the photographer that took the picture of Rumsfeld's driveway. Her information was deliberately posted online, and a call was issued to incite anger and perhaps by extension, violence against the photographer specifically.

Another conservative website linked to that information, but also listed names of NYT's editors and writers and enoucraged readers to dig up as much dirt on these people as possible, including their children, and asked that someone do America a favor and "do something", and perhaps they would become famous.

I don't recall anywhere in the NYT article on Rummy and Cheney a call for people to actually go there and do something to them.

But I did see calls on lesser and more major conservative blogs to do just that. Go. Get the names, here's the adress, do your nation, your fellow Americans a service and become famous.

God forbid something happens to that photographer or some editor at the Times, and it gets linked back to conservative ideology that the media is bad, is our enemy, and is deserving of violence, and you're going to have a very hard time convincing the rest of the unconvinced why they should follow your lead.

And before you ask 'what if something happens to Rummy or Dick Cheney,' they have Secret Service details, 24 hour security, imposed no-fly zone restrictions, and the protection of the greatest defense team in the world.

What does the photographer have?

Someone else stated that someone not quite right in the head might read the NYT article and actually try to do something to Cheney or Rummy. I'll give you that. But again, given the security details these two get, I find it highly unlikely they have anything to fear.

Yet you take that same person who's not quite right in the head, yet who passionately believes that this photographer, while simply doing her job, has maligned this country and weakened it's defense, and pit her against him, with no security detail, and I see a far greater chance of something actually happening to her.

That's what I see wrong with the response to this article, to other articles like it, and the labels it seems conservatives wear on their sleeves and brush in mob-mentality at anyone and everyone who doesn't walk in step with them on every single issue.

Traitor. Evil. Enemy. Say it again.

Traitor. Evil. Enemy. Say it again.

Traitor. Evil. Enemy. Say it again.

Have a demonstration recently (in the past month or two) at Rummy's house?  I don't think it was all that secret of a location.  Still, I agree this seems like a temper tantrum.  It is juvenile.  The NYT has pretty much lost it.

I can almost hear Pinch's words at next year's graduation:

"You weren't supposed to be going on into a world where a Republican President had destroyed an oppressive dictator, created the environment for democratic institutions to take hold, and defeated an Islamist insurgency, but you are. And for that I am sorry".

properly organized corporation the stockholders would have rebelled by now. But the fact that Sulzbeger family controls the real voting stock the bulk of shareholders have no say. Makes  you wonder about how smart the stockholders in the NYT company really are --- their money is invested but they have no say in the company.

Any polarizing figure should be entitled to an enhanced right of privacy. I don't care if its Don Rumsfeld, John kerry, Or the guy that interfered with the foul ball at the world series.

Perfect summary.

about the press revealing information known to be classified.  If that's so, then how are they getting away with gems like this:

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.

Even if you debate the 'classified' status of the NSA wiretaps and the SWIFT monitoring, these are troop movements coming from a classified meeting.  Find out who was at that meeting, find out who the leaker was, and punish both them and the Times for

for the caption highlighting where the hidden camera was?  I haven't commented on the pictures because I generally follow the 48 hour rules.  There is nothing wrong with asking questions about the appropriateness of publishing info on the homes of officals, though.

However, I agree bloggers should now make a correction and probably have shown more restraints in condemnations.  The NYT has been so thoroughly treasonous that I understand the reason to belive the worst.

(BTW, I believe that mentioning of the hidden camera was an attempt to catch the reader's curiosity and not done with malicious intent.)

There is nothing wrong with asking questions about the appropriateness of publishing info on the homes of officals, though.

...we saw such mass condemnation of the New York Times when they published John Kerry's home address, eh?

Would you like it, if the NYT publishing the location of your house. For sauce, in the same issue they could throw in some negative commentary about your politics.

This has nothing to do with politics. I would be just as upset if it were Bill Clintons house, Harry Reids or Britney Spears. This is just plain irresponsible.

 If our government is to improve we need to attract the people that are capable of improving it. We also have to make certain that they desire to do so. Government service shouldnt be considered paying your dues so you can move on to bilking the government. Given that the private sector benefits so outweigh the public sector benefits that anything we can do to make the job more desirable is a must.

I wont go into he said she said but there is enough bad behavior on both sides of the isle. Robert bork, clarence thomas, Iran Contra are from the left there are examples from the right. I think everyone can agree we don't want to be in imperial romes situation where a career in politics would shorten your expected lifespan.

witnesses for the people.  The entire paper is an editorial.  Just that fact that the THINK something is wrong and that its THEIR job to begin the repairs shows an opinionated bias.

Of the views of Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzburger, Jr. regarding the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and this administration: His own words during a recent commencement speech should serve as a helpful reminder about what his idea of "making things right again" entails, courtesy of Editor and Publisher: [h/t: Drudge]

"Perhaps Mr. Keller has been listening to his boss, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who in a recent commencement address apologized to the graduates because his generation 'had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.

Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way,' the publisher continued. 'You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights,' and so on.

After having read a good portion of what the New York Times has published over the past five years, both editorially and in what it calls "hard news" -- I think it's accurate to say that the paper is now operating in a state of open warfare against this administration, everyone in it, and everything it stands for.  

There is something wrong with you.

SECRET SERVICE SAYS TIMES ARTICLE ON CHENEY, RUMSFELD HOMES IS NOT A SECURITY THREAT; RUMSFELD'S OFFICE CONFIRMS GIVING PERMISSION FOR PHOTO OF HIS HOUSE.

where anyone in government lives, aside from the obvious one at the White House, but even he has a few "secret" places to flee to, in dangerous times.  I suspect those secret places will be in the travel section of the NYT next weekend.

You would honestly think the people who write these papers could excersize common sense, but I think my 7 year old can do it better than they can.

since we've so civilized ourselves that it's highly unlikely that an angry mob with torches will show up on the NYT's doorstep.

Pity, that.

Judging by the steady decline of the corporation's share price, I think they're catching on.

Without the New York Times helping. This story, though, is just a petulant temper tantrum. You can almost read the implied "and we can find out or already know about more than the lens in the birdhouse, too, and we could tell everybody these other secret things, just you wait, you better not mess with us, we're above reproach or criticism! We're the New York Times!"

I like the idea of revealing Sulzberger's residence. It'd be fun to have a paper called "The News News" that took mainstream media and New York Times stories and duplicated them exactly, only making them about figures in the media (preferably, those most responsible for the original story) rather than the public figures the MSM originally was trying to tar and feather, or make an easier target for terrorists.

I've seen pictures of the house in print and on tv.  It isn't any big secret at all, there were a lot of spots and articles about them moving there.  Hope that helps.

about this when they do nothing but cry about the national security breeches.  I'd like nothing more than subpoenas and an army of cops raiding the NYT and finding the leakers and openly and loudly bring them to justice.

Just arrive with padlocks...secure the building, and close them down!

Perhaps the encryption keys, Iff settings and methods for detecting IEDs in Iraq are matters of public interest as well. What next publish maps of the minefields around bases. The details of the security measures at Gitmo ?

A free press is all to neccesesary to the welfare of the country that being said no one ever said the times had to be part of it. I hope congress manages to get the times thouroughly decredentialed. They should have access to absolutely nothing and everytime they publish leaks all their reporters should be brought before grand jurys and jailed if they fail to testify.

If the above kills the times then the times will at last have served a usefull purpose. By becoming the Past Times they will remind the press that with liberty comes responsibility.

In the forties nad fifties in new york there was a guy known as the mad bomber. http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/metesky/1.html

He liked to set off pipebombs in public places and had been able to do it unapprehended for 16 years.  How much would you bet that given the chance and easily available information he might have taken a crack at a public figure ?

My point is that there used to be a thing called discretion. Not as in making a choice but as in being discreet. Under Buckley the times might have had a story about the means used to track terrorists but it wouldnt have said anything particularly usefull to them. Likewise, in the past the times might have run a travel piece about people in governments homes without telling you anything except the city they were in. This is a combination of 2 things discretion and courtessy.

Discretion and courtessy were accorded officials of both parties in the past. This was done because in the past the media realized that while they might disagree with an officials stance, said official was undertaking public service and could probably do better in the private sector.

As to the 7 nutcases in miami. Yes thats exactly what I worry most about. They are nuts enough to kill themselves if they think they could take you or me with them. People like them are exactly why public people of both parties are entitled to some discretion and courtessey

Shouldn't they list her home address, what her schedule is, how to find her in public with the fewest bodyguards present, etc.?

As a behind-the-lines enemy sniper in The War Against The War Against Terrorism (TWATWAT), the New York Times has now become a participant in the coming November 7 referendum on this war. Growing Democrat support of the New York Times as such a sniper will require them to identify whose troops they are now supporting.

I think the Cheneys and Rumsfelds should sue the Times for violations of their privacy.  Why should the Times get to publish details about anybody's home without permission?  Forget about whether these are high government officials - it's just as disgusting to give this kind of detail about Joe Schmuck in Podunk.  This is effectively the equivalent of "casing" these houses - I'm sure this is exactly the kind of information burglars and other criminals try to gather about any house they intend to rob.

Maybe we should find people to publish details about Pich Sulzberger's houses and habits.  I wonder if he thinks his information should be plastered in print all over for anybody to see.

Did Rumsfield give permission for the caption highlighting where the hidden camera was?

Given that the photographs were taken with his knowledge and consent, and that the article was a puff piece in the Travel section, is there any valid reason to suppose that Rumsfeld (or more likely, the Secret Service security assigned to protect his home) didn't approve all of the photographs? (If the "hidden camera" was obvious enough that a NYT photographer saw it, then it was never that much of a secret, was it?)

I haven't commented on the pictures because I generally follow the 48 hour rules.  There is nothing wrong with asking questions about the appropriateness of publishing info on the homes of officals, though.

There is something very wrong when a puff piece in the Travel section leads right-wing bloggers to leap to really stupid conclusions. I'd always associated RedState with the saner elements on the right-wing, but I was really astonished to see no one pointing out how grossly stupid this piece of paranoiac fantasising was.

 The NYT has been so thoroughly treasonous that I understand the reason to belive the worst.

Oh yes: I forgot. Definition of treason is when a newspaper publishes information freely available elsewhere - whether the location of Donald Rumsfeld's house, or word of the SWIFT program. Thoroughly "treasonous" stuff: what do these people think the First Amendment is for?

The Times knows that Hillary 'really didn't mean it,' and she only 'voted for the war' because of political expedience.

I am upset about nearly anyone having their private life spattered about the press. To the extent that entertainers wish to promote their private lives they diminish what should be an inherent protection. Government officials are not in the same game as entertainers. The extent we think of high officials as entertainers is a measure of the problems we have accumulated in our system. While everything about their public life is fair game. (Policy biases, decisions, actions taken in office, the source and nature of their finances). Their legitimate private lives should not be subject to this kind of scrutiny. Not to be vulgar but I never cared that president clinton got some. I always felt that a man who had his finger on total anihilation should be a little mellow. What I cared about was the chief executive not being able to uphold his oath of office or the law. Even given that, impeachment was a reach and it will take a long time for us to get past that political mistake.

Ironic but amusing: after all the bashing of the New York Times in the right-wing blogosphere over the weekend, come Monday it can be established that the photographs in the Travel section were, in fact, taken with Secretary Rumsfeld's full permission. (It's a puff piece in the Travel section: what else would anyone expect?)

Will we now see embarrassed updates all over the blogosphere from people who realize they got whipped into hysteria over nothing?

Somehow I doubt it.

just as upset about paprazzi stalking, say, Bruce Willis or Britney, or profiles showing movie star homes, as you are the NYT publishing profiles on the Cheneys' and Runsfelds' estates?

More targets for your ire:

Traitors #2

Traitors #3

Traitors #3

Traitors #1 being the NYT travel section, which has succumbed to pressure from the editors.

of the situation to the Clintons is on-the-money -- after all, they just had a front-page NYT story about the state of their marriage, which neither you nor I care a whit about.  But your attitude and my attitude does not excuse the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Dick Morrises of the world which far outnumber us even on this site.  And the prevailing attitude of the most visible conservatives for over a decade has been that public people have public lives.  Again, I am not saying you and I don't believe people are entitled to some privacy, but after all the Clinton madness can you honestly say that conservatives as a whole can suddenly take this up as their mantra?

Sept. 5th, 2005 - Cheney surveying property?

She knew something was up that day when security agents showed up in the afternoon to scout out the place. An attache of Cheney's then arrived, saying he'd prefer a table among the regular diners -- rather than in a back room. No one bothered their table, and the foursome couldn't have been more pleasant, Miller recalled. But she didn't know whether Cheney was buying a place.

And the owner of the house in question declined to comment, saying politely from the end of its long driveway that he didn't want to talk about anything.

The estate goes back to 1930 and was said to be built by one of Thomas Edison's daughters, according to Robert Snyder, the Coldwell Banker agent who is listing the property.

The nine-acre lot includes extensive gardens, ornamental pools and spectacular views of the water behind it. Deer and osprey can be seen.

Snyder, who is vice president of the St. Michaels town commission, declined to say when any deal might close and whether the Cheneys were going to move in. "It truly is a magnificent piece of property," he added.

It sounds pre-sale, but the area is identified.

Jan 1st, 2006

ST. MICHAELS, Md. -- It's tempting to seek deeper meaning and clues to character in the way Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld kick back in this lovely Eastern Shore community, where both have bought expensive waterfront estates.

...

Rumsfeld's retreat -- a former bed and breakfast built in 1804, for which he paid $1.5 million six months after the invasion of Iraq -- is called Mount Misery. After he took title, two cannonballs were found on the four-acre property: weapons of mass destruction! -- circa 1812.

Cheney's place, named Ballintober after a previous owner's Irish ancestral home, was originally listed for $3.1 million, but the veep drove a hard bargain and paid $2.7 million in September. Among such amenities as a wisteria arbor and swimming pool on nine acres, Ballintober has radiant heat beneath the kitchen and living room floors, especially nice if the vice president pads around in his socks.

The names of the properties are listed here.

IHT - Dec 19th, 2005

There are motorcades of black SUVs on Talbot Street, buzzing Chinooks overhead and a no-flight zone that has private pilots in an uproar. But Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have found peace and quiet in their new weekend hawks' nests, even if their presence in this Chesapeake Bay retreat causes a racket in town.

"It gives you something to talk about," said Norm Tuer, a project manager for one of the area's busy construction companies. "Good for real estate values, too."

As anybody would tell you last week at the Carpenter Street Saloon, St. Michaels' unofficial town hall, two years ago Rumsfeld paid $1.5 million for Mount Misery, a former bed and breakfast with a checkered past. (The 19th-century red-brick house on 4.5 waterfront acres, or 1.8 hectares, was built by Edward Covey, a notorious breaker of rebellious slaves who beat the abolitionist Frederick Douglass on and off there in 1834.)

Cheney, Rumsfeld's friend of three decades, followed this autumn with his own weekend purchase, Ballintober, a sprawling $2.6 million Cape Cod on nine waterfront acres just minutes from the defense secretary. Cheney's house, built in the 1930s, has formal gardens, a wisteria arbor and a 150-foot, or 45-meter, dock reaching out into San Domingo Creek, an inlet of the bay

I won't post it, but I believe I've found another image of Mount Misery Estate that is dating back to 1999-2001 that was not in the NYT article. I understand your point about the NYT's running an article, given today's climate with divulging information that might be in the interest of particular people to keep quiet, but using Google, I got these links.

I don't think terrorists purchase subscriptions to the NYT's soley to pull secret intelligence out of it to use to implement their nefarious plans against America.

This particular story, perhaps published with poor timing in mind, contains nothing new. But as many times as I've gotten replies to some comments that I've left here which simply state "Google is your friend," I can't help but believe anyone looking for information is going to start on the web, using services such as Google to do their preliminary investigative work.

Here's another piece of the puzzle missed in this peice of serious investigative journalism. Back in 2003 the NYT printed this article about and obvious Al Qaeda safe house in southeast New York. Obviously a central location to plot their next attack.

I'd have to pay money to read the full article, and I refuse to do that on general principal.

Again, I say the Cheney/Rumsfeld article, in context, is the NYT flipping off the Bush admin, Republicans, and the unwashed masses. Does it represent a new security risk, like the NYT's eager revelation of anti-terrorist programs?

Probably not.

Is the conservative reaction a bit over the top in some quarters?

I think it is, although I would think a serious analysis of the reaction would recognize that the reaction is not based on this one story, but the relentless daily attack against Republicans, conservatives, and all those not part of the NYT clique, that does seem to take place in the pages of the NYT. If the NYT hadn't just revealed several sensitive government programs in a row, would the Rumsfeld/Cheney travel piece have elicted this sort of reaction here? Probably not.

But the fact is, they had, they do, they probably will continue to do so, while being shocked and appalled that anyone anywhere has the temerity to disagree with or question them. So, sometimes little stories like this will get blown way out of proportion. But the fact that it happens has less to do with how over-sensitive conservatives are on stupid little issues like national security, and more to do with how the NYT conducts itself on a daily basis and has for the past several decades.

Just like the guys with nothing upstairs in the Sears Tower plot, right? This massive plot, but with no weapons, no materials, an empty warehouse, and one guy living in a tent, hellbent on forming an army of 7 and waging war against the US.

Guys who live in tents have never posed a legitimate threat to the U.S. before have they? No weapons, no materials and an empty warehouse means they would never have been able to obtain any of these items right? I do seem to remember armies of 5 waging a pretty effective war against the U.S. though, so you might want to worry about that one.