>Hi Tamar....hope your family is doing well....
>
>>
>>Seems to me a free press that's willing to publish things the government doesn't want us to know is one of the strongest defenses of our freedom. Yeah, they'll get it wrong sometimes and publish things they shouldn't, but I sure wouldn't want the rule to be no publishing "government secrets."
>
>I agree completely. That's the whole purpose of the freedom of the press. As I said before, I don't see this as a freedom of the press issue, I see it as an editorial discretion issue. I am uncomfortable with revealing classified ops that are designed to protect our country.

I've now read the article. Like Mike, I'm hard put to understand the big concerns expressed here. Most of what was in had already appeared elsewhere. I saw nothing that specifically endangered our people.

OTOH, what I read made me furious. The administration is one again ignoring reality while going on its own personal crusade. That's what got us into the mess in Iraq and left bin Laden free all these years. Imagine if we'd put half (one-tenth, one-hundredth) the resources we've spent in Iraq pursing Al Qaeda and bin Laden.



>>>I have to, stringently, disagree with that. Also, I find it difficult to believe that Hersh followed the "three sources" rule before writing. If there are three government sources willing to leak classified ops to a reporter then we are in deep kimchee.
>>
>>I don't think the rule is three sources, but two independent sources. But I've never been a journalist, so I could be wrong.
>
>Even two worries me. People in government with classified data have no business talking with reporters. Yes, they could expose something important that the American people should know about - like the Pentagon papers in 1971 - but they could also undermine our direct security interests. Again I point to editorial discretion.

The Pentagon Papers are a great example. I think that most of those in possession of secrets are very cognizant of the risks of revealing them and doubt they take it lightly. I'm sure that most think long and hard before risking their careers and perhaps their lives.

And yes, of course, editors/publishers need to use discretion. To the best of my knowledge, they do.

That said, we can certainly disagree about whether the public knowing a particular story outweighs the dangers of revealing that story.

>
>>>I think the mantra should be "could people get killed by publishing this". If the answer is "yes", then the huge temptation to embarrass Bush should be put aside. That's what, apparently, they couldn't bring themselves to do.
>>
>>What if people could get killed either way? Seems to me that's true of the current case. If this administration pulls us into war in Iran, lots of people will die.
>
>No doubt. But people are already dying from Iran's involvement outside of their borders. Iran is actively supporting Iraqi insurgents who kill American GIs and innocent Iraqis. Iran funds Hezbollah and their eternal war against Israel. This kind of crap will continue in perpetuity until there is regime change in Iran.

Yeah, but if Hersh is right, what the US is doing there is likely to make things worse, not better. Also, of course, lots of countries would be well-served by regime change. (Zimbabwe comes to mind.) Does that mean we have the right to change the regime?

Taking that to an extreme, this country would be extremely well-served by regime change and would have been for quite some time. But I don't think we'd take it kindly if other countries sent their operatives in to attempt to destabilize our government.

Tamar