New York Times' David Sanger Defends Publishing WikiLeaks Cables

npr.org:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, has suggested that The New York Times should be investigated for publishing classified diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. "To me the New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, but whether they have committed a crime -- I think that bears a very intense inquiry by the Justice Department," Lieberman told Fox News on Tuesday.

On today's Fresh Air, David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, responds to Lieberman's remarks and explains why The Times decided to publish the cables.

Read the whole story: npr.org

Comments

[NebDem78]

02:46 AM on 12/14/2010

David Sanger has a right to publish that information and to appeal to the laws of the United States, whereas, Julian Assange has no rights when he personally called for the President of the United States to resign: due to one of the secrets he exposed. The major difference in this instance is that David Sanger abides by the laws of the United States, and, takes into his own self a personal interest to the safety to the preserving those laws, whereas, Julian Assange is an anarchist.

[SuperBenFranklin]

04:26 PM on 12/09/2010

It is as much a privacy issue as it is free speech issue.

Do people have the right to privacy? Do their governments have the right to privacy?

You will never see Julian release the emails between him and his lawyer. Why? Because it is his right to privacy.

Then shouldn't a person's government have the same right. The governement is my government. The diplomats are my diplomats. Should my right to privacy apply to my government?

Letting wikileaks go on, really means, there is no right to privacy anymore. Any entity can get your bank statements and release them. Get your email, and release them. Get your credit card numbers and release them. Get Julian's email to his lawyer and release them. Everything is open.

It is scary world, with Google reading your email and serving up ads based on it, and foreign entities releasing stolen email of your diplomats.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

11:04 AM on 12/10/2010

Here's an FYI: You HAVE no privacy. The Patriot Act took care of that, and thanks to the"secret room" at AT&T..... they ARE reading your e-mails and listening to your phone calls.

When the internet first started..... I was told this: DO NOT WRITE ANYTHING IN AN E-MAIL THAT COULD'T BE POSTED ON THE NY TIMES SQUARE MARQUEE!

That advice has been in my mind since the first day.... and I make every effort to consider that before I press the "SEND" button.

[Alien Nation]

04:23 PM on 12/09/2010

In the end it really won't matter because the masters will do what the masters will do.

[jsgaetano]

11:44 AM on 12/09/2010

The WikiLeaks release is the greatest event to ever happen in the history of Open Government.
 
Conservatives are just terrified their lies will be exposed... especially when Financial Fraud Industry docs are released.

[SuperBenFranklin]

04:26 PM on 12/09/2010

What happens when your information is exposed? Your bank accounts? Your tax returns? Your credit card numbers? In an Open Government, all information is open.

[joemartin1296]

08:48 AM on 12/09/2010

"...it was legal and it was important for a democratic society."

why wasn't the argument the same when you the NYT wouldn't publish the climate-gate e-mails, citing the nature of the sourcing, unsubstantiated nature of the information and the fact that the information was 'never intended for public viewing'? why can you not publish e-mails revealing corruption in climate science - but can publish classified military and government information?

the NYT times is consistently all to willing to to embarrass our government, embarrass this country and place people's dignity and lives at risk, all around the world.

and you wonder why you circulation and relevance declines with each passing fiscal quarter.

[truthisneeded]

07:16 AM on 12/09/2010

In England "The incoming Conservatives appear to have made some wide-ranging offers of political co-operation with the US. The cables detail a series of private meetings with Tory frontbenchers, many of whom are now in the cabinet.

Liam Fox, now the defence secretary, promised to buy American military equipment, while the current foreign secretary, William Hague, offered the ambassador a "pro-American" government. Hague also said the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, "staunchly Atlanticist" and "children of Thatcher".

"The UK's commitment of resources – financial, military, diplomatic – in support of US global priorities remains unparalleled; a UK public confident that the USG values those contributions and our relationship, matters to US national security."

"Britain's willingness to invest in expensive weaponry is a key part of the so-called special relationship. The UK's annual military budget is running at £37bn a year.

Fox's reference to more procurement from the US shows his zest for heavy spending on two future big-ticket items – the joint strike fighter [JSF], and the £20bn replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system. The largely US-built JSF will be formidably expensive, and the original scheme was for Britain to buy up to 138 of them at £150m each, to go on giant aircraft carriers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-us-special-relationship

[only livin boy in NY]

07:07 AM on 12/09/2010

i listened to his mealy-mouthed defense while blasting wikileaks

[Mikeystyle]

10:25 PM on 12/08/2010

In an effort to protect itself from attacks by American conservatives, the media website WikiLeaks announced Friday that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been hired as a consultant and spokesman for the organization.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor, said via Skype from an unknown location that Libby would primarily serve as a communications consultant and spokesman in the U.S., which he hoped would placate those on the American right.

“Scooter Libby revealed classified information and put a covert CIA operative at risk as part of a political attack, yet Republicans rallied to his cause. He even got a ‘get out of jail free card’ from President Bush,” Assange said. “I can’t think of anyone better suited to represent our organization, which also reveals classified information. Since American conservatives don’t have a problem with one of their own breaking the law, perhaps Mr. Libby can help shield us from some of these attacks.”

(continued….)

http://www.thechicagodope.com/2010/12/03/scooter-libby-hired-by-wikileaks/

[marind]

06:39 PM on 12/08/2010

That's right. Persecute the NYTime for telling the truth. But do nothing to FOX for lying lying lying lying lying lying lying..................................................

[jsgaetano]

11:48 AM on 12/09/2010

That's the pillar of conservative ideology.  Lies must be preserved at all costs.
 
As the father of modern conservative thought, Joseph Goebbels, once said-

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

 
This is why Faux News is so vital to the conservative's fascist agenda.

[Pod-gers]

05:00 PM on 12/08/2010

LOL The MSM, specifically the NYT, enthrall to Liberman and the US Government?

Has the Senate redacted the 1st Amendmant from the US Constitution?

[CHMB]

04:57 PM on 12/08/2010

Lieberman needs to stop talking, for once in his life.

[bryan broome]

04:20 PM on 12/08/2010

Julian Assange's manifesto for anyone that's interested
http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

[dumboldfarmer]

04:14 PM on 12/08/2010

In a free, honest, fair and open society, truth is valued highly. In a controlled, repressive society, excessive secrecy is valued for the power it gives over others.

[marind]

06:39 PM on 12/08/2010

Here here.

[wyb]

03:54 PM on 12/08/2010

Until I see a Wiki that says something like Saddam is renting a house, through the Witness Protection Program, from Don Rumsfeld or Paul Bremer, Doonesbury and Tom Clancey reveal much more.

[jsgaetano]

11:49 AM on 12/09/2010

And some docs which explain how Cheney prevented NORAD from responding on 9/11.
 
Oh wait, there was testimony about that on C-Span.

[foxisms]

03:39 PM on 12/08/2010

Only those with something personal to hide or protect could be so adamant about not allowing these documents to be made public.
And besides..it was announcing that the world banks would be the next target of exposure that brought on the complaints from the small people like Joe...everything was taken with a shrug up until that point.
Since? It's been calls for someone's head.
Joe thinks no one out here was paying attention.