(Headline/Title Redacted)
December 22, 2006 3:33 PM Subscribe
Redacted. Along with the authors' commentary on the situation, and links to the public, non-classified sources of the information that the White House demanded be censored from the article. (previously)
This post was deleted for the following reason: hi -- there is still an open post on a closely related topic from yesterday.
Hmm, I posted this as a link in thread to avoid being yelled at :P.
Anyway, posting the blacked-out text probably makes bush look a lot worse then it would if they'd just ignored it.
posted by delmoi at 3:45 PM on December 22, 2006
Anyway, posting the blacked-out text probably makes bush look a lot worse then it would if they'd just ignored it.
posted by delmoi at 3:45 PM on December 22, 2006
My "previously" wasn't good enough?
Seriously, though, I hope it's not poor form to make a post like this so soon after the initial one. My logic is that the previous post was saying that this was going to happen; now that it actually has happened, a lot more information can be added to that which the original post had.
I apologize if this is considered poor form.
posted by Flunkie at 3:46 PM on December 22, 2006
Seriously, though, I hope it's not poor form to make a post like this so soon after the initial one. My logic is that the previous post was saying that this was going to happen; now that it actually has happened, a lot more information can be added to that which the original post had.
I apologize if this is considered poor form.
posted by Flunkie at 3:46 PM on December 22, 2006
delmoi: Anyway, posting the blacked-out text probably makes bush look a lot worse then it would if they'd just ignored it.I think that's the whole point. Snarking in the other thread to the effect of "where the hell were you guys for the last six years" aside, I applaud the NY Times for this.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 3:51 PM on December 22, 2006
Leverett’s getting a lot of ink out of this. I wonder if he’ll be selling a book any time soon. *cynicismfilter*
Pretty much same stuff he said on tv. I enjoy the manner in which he orders his thoughts tho, seems clear and honest. You can’t keep a good man down.
“My "previously" wasn't good enough?”
So there’s these comedians sitting at a table in a resturant and one shouts “Number 234.”
And the rest of them burst out laughing. Another comedian shouts “Yeah, number 163” and again, a big laugh. So a guy sitting next to their table says “I don't get it. Why are you all laughing at people just saying numbers?”
And one of the comedians says “Well, we know all the jokes by numbers, so all the competitors have to do is give the number.”
So the guy shouts “Number 125” and no one laughs. He says “What’s wrong, that’s a joke number isn’t it?”
And the comedian says “Well, yeah, but it’s the way you tell it.”
(Another comedian walks into the resturant and says “Number 1522” and everyone dies laughing. The guy asks “What was that?” and the comedian says “Well, we haven’t heard that one before”)
Just ribbing, thanks for the info.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:58 PM on December 22, 2006
Pretty much same stuff he said on tv. I enjoy the manner in which he orders his thoughts tho, seems clear and honest. You can’t keep a good man down.
“My "previously" wasn't good enough?”
So there’s these comedians sitting at a table in a resturant and one shouts “Number 234.”
And the rest of them burst out laughing. Another comedian shouts “Yeah, number 163” and again, a big laugh. So a guy sitting next to their table says “I don't get it. Why are you all laughing at people just saying numbers?”
And one of the comedians says “Well, we know all the jokes by numbers, so all the competitors have to do is give the number.”
So the guy shouts “Number 125” and no one laughs. He says “What’s wrong, that’s a joke number isn’t it?”
And the comedian says “Well, yeah, but it’s the way you tell it.”
(Another comedian walks into the resturant and says “Number 1522” and everyone dies laughing. The guy asks “What was that?” and the comedian says “Well, we haven’t heard that one before”)
Just ribbing, thanks for the info.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:58 PM on December 22, 2006
The blacked out sectiosn contain details of the alien conspiracy and contact with the Great Old Ones.
posted by Artw at 4:13 PM on December 22, 2006
posted by Artw at 4:13 PM on December 22, 2006
If you highlight the text on the NYT page with the redacted article, you see that underneath the blacked-out lines it appears that each individual letter was replaced with an X. Spaces are intact. No such luck finding the original text underneath the redaction, but I was surprised to see the word divisions left in, rather than one long XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
posted by emelenjr at 4:14 PM on December 22, 2006
posted by emelenjr at 4:14 PM on December 22, 2006
Does anyone have a registration-free link to the censored documents?
posted by stet at 4:30 PM on December 22, 2006
posted by stet at 4:30 PM on December 22, 2006
Wow. We have state-run newspapers now.
This is officially really scary.
posted by JWright at 4:44 PM on December 22, 2006
This is officially really scary.
posted by JWright at 4:44 PM on December 22, 2006
Seriously, though, I hope it's not poor form to make a post like this so soon after the initial one.
Sorry, I can't hear you. You're going to have to speak up over all the noise of everyone rushing to click on "flag as inappropriate."
posted by Rhomboid at 5:14 PM on December 22, 2006
Sorry, I can't hear you. You're going to have to speak up over all the noise of everyone rushing to click on "flag as inappropriate."
posted by Rhomboid at 5:14 PM on December 22, 2006
IMHO, governments shouldn't need to do this, but not for the reason of "I-don't-want-a-state-run-newspaper" (which is bad too).
More along the lines of "If this is so important, why is it publicly available in the first place?" Two words: Se curity.
posted by niles at 5:35 PM on December 22, 2006
More along the lines of "If this is so important, why is it publicly available in the first place?" Two words: Se curity.
posted by niles at 5:35 PM on December 22, 2006
Thanks Flunkie. A normal person would create a separate thread to highlight something like this. Meanwhile... back at the ranch, a nasty gunfight breaks out over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
posted by Huplescat at 5:39 PM on December 22, 2006
posted by Huplescat at 5:39 PM on December 22, 2006
"Meanwhile... back at the ranch, a nasty gunfight breaks out over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."
Measure the area of the head of the pin. Measure the area occupied by one angel. The remaining arithmetic is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:50 PM on December 22, 2006
Measure the area of the head of the pin. Measure the area occupied by one angel. The remaining arithmetic is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:50 PM on December 22, 2006
Flunkie, it's a minor transgression. The problem with Newsfilter generally is that we can end up with before, during, and after threads for everything, and that clutters the page. Even more so if you don't consider Newsfilter best-of-the-web. A separate problem is that people often say pertinent things in the first thread, but fill the later thread(s) with insubstantial snark. Just don't make a habit of it.
Anyway, posting the blacked-out text probably makes bush look a lot worse then it would if they'd just ignored it.
It's really a brilliant maneuver -- even more so by the xxx approach, which makes it a sort of cryptogram.
Wow. We have state-run newspapers now.... This is officially really scary.
National security censorship has been around for a long time, and it's one of the few exceptions to the general judicial disdain for prior restraint. It's more impressive when it isn't hiding the generally known or inferrable.
posted by dhartung at 5:56 PM on December 22, 2006
Anyway, posting the blacked-out text probably makes bush look a lot worse then it would if they'd just ignored it.
It's really a brilliant maneuver -- even more so by the xxx approach, which makes it a sort of cryptogram.
Wow. We have state-run newspapers now.... This is officially really scary.
National security censorship has been around for a long time, and it's one of the few exceptions to the general judicial disdain for prior restraint. It's more impressive when it isn't hiding the generally known or inferrable.
posted by dhartung at 5:56 PM on December 22, 2006
"It is for this reason that we will continue to press for the release of the article without the material deleted."
I'm minssing something here... why do they have to allow the WH to clear what's printed in their paper? Are there legal repurcussions? Or will the DoJ simply be a pain in the ass?
posted by stewiethegreat at 6:11 PM on December 22, 2006
I'm minssing something here... why do they have to allow the WH to clear what's printed in their paper? Are there legal repurcussions? Or will the DoJ simply be a pain in the ass?
posted by stewiethegreat at 6:11 PM on December 22, 2006
State Secrets violations carry hefty prison terms, in my somewhat fuzzy understanding.
posted by IronLizard at 6:33 PM on December 22, 2006
posted by IronLizard at 6:33 PM on December 22, 2006
I'm minssing something here... why do they have to allow the WH to clear what's printed in their paper? Are there legal repurcussions? Or will the DoJ simply be a pain in the ass?
It's not the NYT who has to clear what they print, but Leverett, who as a former CIA employee is bound to submit anything he publishes for scrutiny and possible redaction.
posted by unSane at 6:59 PM on December 22, 2006
It's not the NYT who has to clear what they print, but Leverett, who as a former CIA employee is bound to submit anything he publishes for scrutiny and possible redaction.
posted by unSane at 6:59 PM on December 22, 2006
Good thing they censored this article. I take comfort in knowing that the white house can prevent security leaks.
posted by jcterminal at 7:14 PM on December 22, 2006
posted by jcterminal at 7:14 PM on December 22, 2006
on that note, patricia dunn totally sweats the white house.
posted by phaedon at 7:18 PM on December 22, 2006
posted by phaedon at 7:18 PM on December 22, 2006
Way back in the day, I lived in Iran--American Embassy brat, long story. Anyhoo, the Shahanshah Reza Pahlavi went to the United States and was greeted with protesters in California. Doonesbury made light of it and, a couple of days later, when the American newspapers ran those particular strips, Iranian censors went through and cut them out. Only Doonesbury. Big, gaping holes in newspapers cut to shreds.
Even as a lad of nine, I saw those papers and knew something was deeply wrong.
Wake up, people. This isn't some third-world dictatorship. This is happening to us. In our backyard. Where is the outrage? Why aren't we rioting in the streets about this? Are we that disaffected? Do we know that we are that powerless? For myself, I answer: Yes. What in the hell can we--I--do about it?
Christ, I want to get drunk. And not in a good way.
posted by John of Michigan at 7:20 PM on December 22, 2006
Even as a lad of nine, I saw those papers and knew something was deeply wrong.
Wake up, people. This isn't some third-world dictatorship. This is happening to us. In our backyard. Where is the outrage? Why aren't we rioting in the streets about this? Are we that disaffected? Do we know that we are that powerless? For myself, I answer: Yes. What in the hell can we--I--do about it?
Christ, I want to get drunk. And not in a good way.
posted by John of Michigan at 7:20 PM on December 22, 2006
« Older The Duke lacrosse rape case | The Agronomist Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Smedleyman at 3:40 PM on December 22, 2006