Our Media Lapdogs: At White House behest, NYTimes sat on scoop

by Michael Calderone (Politico, 2007-11-20)

When the New York Times published a front page story Sunday about the United States’ and Pakistan’s joint clandestine efforts to protect nuclear weapons, the newspaper offered a glimpse into a “highly classified program” the Bush administration long objected to seeing in print.

That is, apparently, until now.

In the article’s 11th paragraph, the Times disclosed that publication was delayed “for more than three years,” after the administration argued “that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons.”

So after several years, and previous objection, why did the piece now come off the shelf?

Times executive editor Bill Keller did not respond to several requests for comment about what influenced his decision to now publish the piece.

The rest of the story: Politico

The War: U.N. Report on Iraq Details An 'Ever-Deepening' Crisis

by Joshua Partlow and Colum Lynch (Washington Post, 2007-10-12)

BAGHDAD, Oct. 11 -- A U.N. report issued Thursday outlined an "ever-deepening humanitarian crisis" in Iraq, with thousands of people driven from their homes each month, ongoing indiscriminate killings and "routine torture" in Iraqi prisons....

The assessment by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, which covered a three-month period ending June 30, found that civilians were suffering "devastating consequences" from violence across the country. It documented more than 100 civilians allegedly killed by U.S.-led forces during airstrikes or raids.

The report described Iraq in more dire terms than last month's congressional testimony from top U.S. military and embassy officials, which stressed improvements in the security situation.

"The killings are still taking place, the torture is still being reported, the due process issues are still unresolved," said Ivana Vuco, a U.N. human rights officer in Baghdad.

The rest of the story: The Washington Post

Congress: Another cave-in on civil liberties in the works

Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers

by Eric Lichtblau and Carl Hulse (New York Times, 2007-10-09)

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.

As the debate over the eavesdropping powers of the National Security Agency begins anew this week, the emerging measures reflect the reality confronting the Democrats.

Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.

A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months.

In an acknowledgment of concerns over civil liberties, the bill would require a more active role by the special foreign intelligence court that oversees the interception of foreign-based communications by the security agency.

A competing proposal in the Senate, still being drafted, may be even closer in line with the administration plan, with the possibility of including retroactive immunity for telecommunications utilities that participated in the once-secret program to eavesdrop without court warrants.

The rest of the story: The New York Times

Intelligence: Bush and bin Laden

Far From Declining, Al Qaeda Has Rebuilt, With Fresh Faces and a Vigorous Media Arm

by Hal Brown (Capital Hill Blue, 2007-09-09)

Is it too much to hope that Bush will read the long Washington Post front page article about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Would spending ten - okay 30 - minutes reading about this most dangerous of world leaders and his mercurial country (aka al Qaeda) be too much of an effort for him? If Bush really believes "we are fighting them there (Iraq) so we don't have to fight them here," he needs a stiff dose of reality.

The rest of the story:

The New Al Qaeda Central by Craig Whitlock (The Washington Post, 2007-09-09)
Hal Brown's commentary (Capital Hill Blue 2007-09-10)

CIA and FBI Computers Used for Wikipedia Edits

People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.

The changes may violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday.

The rest of the story: PC Magazine

Outed Ex-Agent Plame and publisher sue CIA over her memoir

(Reuters) An ex-spy whose unmasking led to the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide is suing the Central Intelligence Agency, accusing it of unconstitutionally interfering with publication of her memoir. Valerie Plame Wilson and her publisher, Simon & Schuster, filed a suit against J. Michael McConnell, the CIA director of national intelligence, and CIA director Michael Hayden. The CIA demanded "significant portions" of Wilson's manuscript be "excised or rendered 'fiction'" to protect the secrecy of Wilson's service before 2002. The rest of the story: Reuters.

Are reporters the same as foreign spies?

The U.S. Army apparently thinks so.

Wired's national security Danger Room report's on the Army's tough new security directives urging that reporters be handled like Al-Qaeda moles and treating the communication of unclassified, so-called "critical" and "sensitive" data as almost as serious a matter as leaking top secret information.

Army personnel should "consider handling attempts by unauthorized personnel to solicit critical information or sensitive information as a Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the U.S. Army (SAEDA) incident," the regulations say.

(1) DA personnel who have been involved in or have knowledge of a SAEDA incident will report all facts immediately to the nearest supporting counterintelligence (CI) office as required by AR 381–12.

(2) If these offices are not readily available, SAEDA incidents will be reported to the unit or organization security manager or commander.

(3) Security managers and commanders will ensure that, without exception, reports are relayed as securely and expeditiously as possible, but in all cases within 24 hours, to the nearest CI element.

(4) If counterintelligence support is not available, call the 1–800–CALL–SPY (1–800–225–5779) hotline, leave a message with your name and telephone number and no further details.

Secrecy News chief Steven Aftergood calls out this section -- which "encourages Army personnel to view inquisitive members of the press or the public as if they were enemies of the United States" -- as one of the worst in a "very rich and disturbing document."

He also notes that this policy -- and others like it -- seems "to be having an effect. I have noticed quite a few valuable Army web sites that used to be publicly available until this year and no longer are. One example: many hundreds of documents on the Army JAG site have recently been made password-protected."

Check out the presentation from the Army's 1st Information Operations Command, above. "And," as Danger Room puts it, "be ready to gag."