But you're missing the dub2w's point on how it's useless information. What else can be gained from this type of information on a public site? Do you think regular Joe Blow is in his basement cooking up an evacuation plan for the city and high ranking officials? No. So wouldn't this information be more useful in the right hands and on a need to know basis?

Well seeing how I can't connect with you on the tactical nuclear bomb information, what's your answer regarding al-Libbi's brief case? You never really covered it in post #5. Instead you speculated about how the terrorists may have used this information only to say I was the one throwing out speculation (?)

Btw, the media has been a substantial thorn in the militaries side during this war. There's a time and place for these fruitless stories and it's not during a war effort. Do you think the Iraqi government put a halt to al Jazzera for ****s and giggles? Do you think the military personnel enjoyed the media dog and pony show regarding the marine mosque shooting in Fallujah? You only hear from the high brass that play the game. The ones that are too afraid to be labeled as another Lt. General James Mattis for speaking their minds. I can think of handfuls of SOF and regular military personnel that think the very same way I do. Half of the 350,000 people that signed the petition to save the Marine shooter during the Fallujah Mosque incident were veterans! Speak for yourself in regards to speculation from now on.

 

And you're still missing my point that the info is equally useless to terrorists. So we have some info that's useless to everyone...why hide it? I say, if there's no harm nor good to come of the info, then it should not be restricted and can be published.

Nice diversion. Please explain to me the importance of the general public knowing that we have some info from a briefcase. Obviously the guy who's briefcase we stole knows that we have his stuff/info. And, I assume, he told all his buddies that we have his stuff too...so why is it important that we keep it a secret that we have his stuff?

But you still have not given me any reference to a time when these stories cause problems with the war. You bring up the mosque shooting...but the only problem that caused was with the 'marketing' department of the military. I didn't hear anyone say it made fighting harder, they just had to have some desk jockey show up to a bunch of press conferences.

Bringing up veterans signing petitions has nothing to do with this discussion, and neither does the fact that handfuls of your military connections think the same way you do. There are no facts to show any media story, true or false, has hindred our actual progress in Iraq at all. It's all speculation, if you don't recognize that it's your own nearsightedness.

Furthermore, I will reiterate a point that I made earlier:
If these stories actually hurt our gov't or military's progress, individuals from the media would be accused of treason and tried accordingly. But the info in these stories is not treasonous, and presents no harm to our efforts abroad. So they're allowed, and should be allowed, to be published.

 

but mvwrx, it's not equally useless info to the terrorists. this information is a detailed, highly statistical analysis of actual damage from a the point of nuclear detonation.

the lay of the land contributes to the amount of lives potentially lost, and this program shows potential terrorists exactly how much damage can be done.

i understand if you cry freedom of speech, but i dont follow your argument against it

 

I'm not for censorship by any means but I am for people using common sense about what comes out of their mouth. In other words self censorship. Just because you can say it doesn't mean you should.

 

Diversion?! Are you kidding me? It was priority intelligence with UBL and al Zarqawi's contact information. Soldiers kill for that type of PIR off their captives. al Libbi got caught with his pants down. You don't hold that kind of information with you. You memorize it or cache the information where it cannot be easily found. al Libbi knew this too. According to the report he desperately tired to destroy the documents when he realized he was surrounded.

Besides, you still don't mention on how important this information would have been if you never heard it from the media in the first place! I don't get your logic. How could he tell his buddies while being held in our custody? Where are you getting this ridiculous information?

 

May be a good time to bump this seeing how I never got an answer for post #20.

I'm sure you've been gathering quarters to send to Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghirab so the insurgents get their “one phone call.”

 

My point in this thread is that if there was something published that hurt our efforts abroad, the gov't would squash it and prosecute the source. For example, in the news now is a scientific paper somehow relating to contaminating our milk sources. The paper is not yet availible to the public. The gov't is debating on how to deal with it, and may disallow its publication. The articles/occurances in this thread did not ellicit such a response from the gov't or military, and so their being published is in all likelyhood not a matter of national security.

 

Here is something interesting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8135049/
A similar study being held for security reasons.

 

EXACTLY what I'm saying, if there's some danger in a document, the gov't stops it from being publically posted/published. The two incidences that are further up on this thread obviously didn't set off the alarms that this report did, so why in hell would we censor it.

 

Not knowing why it didn't "set off alarms" or what criteria needs be met to "set of alarms" its difficult to tell. How does the government go about finding and screening these types of documents? I doubt very much that the various science journals submit their material to some government agency for approval before publishing it. I'd imagine that it would take someone involved in the journal to bring it to the attention of the appropriate agency before the governemt took notice. Not a very reliable system for screening potentially harmful material. We all know that we can't rely on scientist to be aware of things like national security, they're "blinded by science" (pun intended). They often seem only to see whats in their microscope and not the implications of what they are doing and saying as they apply to society at large.

 

You are further prooving my point about the aforementioned articles in the media. This thread is about a report that made it's way into mainstream media. The government 'caught' the scientific report you brought up today. If they have the knowledge and 'big-brotherness' to catch that, I'm sure they knew about the reports that started this thread also. And they didn't take any action. So all of you who are b***ing about the media leaking tactical secrets to the enemy have your heads up yur bums.

 

You are assuming a lot. You are also assuming that the government has the ability to stop such reports from being published, they can request it but because of our right to free speach they would be hard pressed to get it done without cooperation. There are so many outlets, so many publications it would take the abillity to see all and regulate the flow of all outlets for such information. The government does not have that ability. The studies being published are not done, nor are they released by the major media outlets. I could do a study and publish it without the government knowing until the information was out there. Its not the media leaking anything its the media bringing attention to the fact that someone is releasing such information.

 

I think it can be kept from happening at the source. But we know this isn't going to happen when the main focus is to create controversy and sell papers. It doesn't take too much common sense for the editors of these papers to realize the potential **** storms and counter-productivity these stories may have. All for a few extra sales? Some are too easy to predict. Like dub2w said, what can possibly come from a nuclear catastriophe calculator and letting the world know we've caught al Libbi with vital intelligence the day of capture? Absolutely nothing! It's almost as bad as calling UBL with the phone numbers they may have acquired and telling him to flee.

Why not have a liberal government official stand right next to the editor's desk ready to read the stories during wartime? Make he/she very liberal so everyone that cries "free speech" is still happy or doesn't know any better. But make sure he has half a brain cell and knows the impact of a bs story during such a fragile time. Then make it to where his job requires him to temporarily hold that story, stop it completely or risk being fired. A simple checks and balances system with one or two people would probably keep this type of stuff to a minimal amount.