dub2w

i dont think ish like this should be allowed to be published

http://www.cq.com/public/20050524B_homeland.html

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Exactly.

When I read articles like this I always consider the greater good regarding "what if's." Regardless of freedom of press & speech, I could never justify these types of stories on a strategic and moral standpoint.

I mean it's the equivalent to interviewing a US general out of context or off the record on how the insurgents could completely kick our asses in Iraq. And then printing his words on a million memos and releasing them into the atmosphere of Falluja and Sunni Triangle via helicopter. Does that make sense to anyone here? Because if this information reaches capable hands it's pretty much the same thing.

More proof the media needs to have moderate restrictions during such delicate times.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

F*** restrictions. Do we censor info on how to make pipe bombs? Or zip guns? Do we censor the knowledge that a nuclear bomb can take out a city? Or that a regular bomb can take out a building? Do we censor the fact that gasoline can explode? Or that, if used properly, chemicals from your own garage can be made into drugs? Do we stop engineers from figuring out how much boom a bomb makes? Do we censor the fact that the US needs better protection in its ports/airports/water supplies/food supplies? NO. Because we know better than to restrict freedom, the most fundamental of pillars this country sits on, just to keep info out of the hands of some terrorists.

Censorship like you've suggested is appalling. This country is not about strategy, it's about the rights and freedoms of its citizens. And I don't know how publishing reports like this offends your morals in any way, that just doesn't make sense.

Do you really think the people who have the ability to deploy a bomb over DC don't already know it would destroy a lot of s***?!?!?! Don't you think they know that bombs going off in the air are better than ones in the ground?!?!? This is not new knowledge, they just have to watch the Discovery channel or video of a US attack to know all of the pertinant info in that report.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

But the idea usually doesn't start with the MIT educated scientist.

But the buck doesn't stop there. We had a story published on how al-Libbi's brief case was captured with priority intelligence of contacts. If your son or daughter was serving In Iraq and got captured by al-Zarqawi after this story was released you wouldn't have this stance. I mean there's no denying the fact that if that story was sealed, we could have had a better chance of nabbing him and UBL. Even if it was an increase of a measly .0001%

Would you praise freedom of the press, free of speech and the pillars of our free society when your son or daughters head was on the chopping block? Especially knowing that we were .0001% greater chance of picking up his scent? There's no way! It's all fun and games until someone exploits your freedoms and ****s on your chest.

I just don’t get the reckless logic! We take our 1st amendment for granted to the point that our very existence, very freedoms and security are at serious risk? Why?! Why do with we have such little regard for something so sacred only to turn around and take off out shoes at an airport and have our bags checked time and time again. I mean those of us that travel do it all the time and still live great lives. It’s almost like going to the federal reserve and asking why they have gold under lock and key. Surely they have nothing to worry about either.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

The information that gets published is not nearly as vital as you make it seem. The people who inflict harm on our country already know everything they need to know, or they have ways to get it other than our press. They are motivated to get that info, weather it's in the news or at a discrete IP address that gets hacked by terrorists.
I contend that there is no info that the news/media gets that our enemies don't have access to anyway. So why the hell hide info they probably already have when we can just be better then them.
Restrictions on what the media can and can't publish in a time of war can only possibly cause problems at home, and I am willing to bet that there hasn't been any 'news breaks' that have seriously hindered our efforts in Iraq or anywhere else we're at conflict. You speculate that it has caused problems, but I've never even heard a single comment from military personel saying that the international media is making it harder to fight the war. Hell, the white house is even saying that the recent riots that some say were caused by a certain Newsweek article were actually only tenuously connected to the article and were primarily caused by other problems.

It's not like the media has a GPS tracker on the President and gives his exact coordinates every minute of the day.

dub2w

i agree whole-heartedly with freedom of speech, but this case is different IMO. after all, what can we possibly gain from knowing the exact calculated amount of damage that WMDs would do to American cities?

war time or not, there is no need for this type of information ever

and a better analogy would be how to assasinate a president rather than simply how to construct a pipe-bomb. we are effectively handing an outline for a strategic strike to these crazy bastards.

this is exactly where freedom of speech gets out of hand

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Just that.

Exactly!

Chrisnonstop

Luckily for us much of our anit-terrorism focus is on Nukes getting smuggled into the U.S. BUT,...never say "It'll never happen to us."

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Better question: what can terrorists gain from knowing the exact calculated amount of damage that WMDs would do to American cities. I mean...they're gonna try to do damage regardless of weather they know how much damage they'll do. So why does it matter?
Americans actually CAN gain from this knowledge though. We can know what areas would be affected so we can have better escape plans for the Pres and other officials, we can have drills in those areas, etc. The terrorists, on the other hand, would only be able to say "Hey, that bomb we want to drop, it'll blow stuff up and we'll be happy". Beyond that, the report doesn't help them.
I disagree that that report is an 'outline' of a strategic strike. The terrorsits know enough already to get a bomb over the White House. I mean...they hit the pentagon, do you really think they'd have a harder time with the White House???

If this report was treason, the authors would be arrested right now and tried. But it's not, it's a harmless report. The 'restrictions' you suggest are already around, treason is illegal. This, however, is not treason.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I'm no super genius but maybe the amount of casualties it can yield in a given metropolitan area?

If i've purchased a nuclear explosive for millions of dollars you can bet your *** I want the maximum carnage for my dollar.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Okay..... Then why not keep this type of information with those establishing the drills and those with the president (etc) in the first place?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

All the report did was give some numbers and land areas. The technique of how to explode a nuc has been around for a long time, and you can bet your *** that if I bought a nuc I'd know that blowing it up in the sky above a city is how it's done. Knowing exactly how much area will get destroyed is really irrelevant considering that anyone who is in possetion of a nuc will undoubtedly know how to use it most effectively.

How does knowing the number of casualties you will cause in a metro area help anything at all, if you already knew that you were gonna cause the maximum amount of damage.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Because, as I have explained a few times here already, it doesn't help the terrorists or hurt the US to have people know this info. It is not tactical info, it is not directions on how to find the president, it merely is a report that says IF you correctly detonate a nuclear bomb in this spot, it will cause this damage.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

How is that not tactical information?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Because that's where they would detonate it anyway.


Terrorist1: Lets use this nuc to get the US Pres
Terrorist2: Ok, so then we blow it up over the White House
Terrorist1: No s*** Sherlock, did you have to read a CNN report to figure that out?