Would the BBC have broadcast the date of D-Day to the Nazis?

[MAJOR_Baker]

You know, I am all for the freedom of the press, whatever, but I have to question the wisdom of these A-holes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ied14mar14,0,4963762.story?coll=la-home-nation

What is wrong with these people do they really hate G.W. that much that they want us to loose?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

" No one has come to us with a request"

I guess the blanket, unspoken request of "Use your head for more than a hat rack" doesn't count?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The editors/newsperson/owner of the Times should be brought up on charges of treason.

 

[aluc]

"We do not knowingly publish information that puts troops in danger," McManus said. "The government often asks us not to publish sensitive facts. They made no such request in this case."

Well you did knowingly publish info that obviously would have helped preserve American lives. Yet, you have now handed over info to the enemy...  Treacherous ,traitorous, unscrupulous, media, wh*res! These media types, (news media, entertainment, and the remainder of their ilk) will spread their legs for any chance to make $$$$$. Prostitutes!  No regard for the common good, only about the bottom line!

Doesn't the western media realise that our enemy uses our right to free speech against us. It would be useful if they exhibited a little more restraint and responsibility in what they publish. However, no news, or dull news makes no cash.

 

[MountainRunner]

Aluc,
quote: "will spread their legs for any chance to make $$$$$. Prostitutes!"

You can be angry but don't be offensive.

 

[aluc]

I apologise for the harshness....been one of those days  :threat:

ok ...how about sell outs.....instead.

 

[Sheerin]

The article did not provide specific information about the technology, and The Times deliberately withheld some details about the neutralizers from its report.

"We knew about some of the technical details of the program, but voluntarily omitted them because they were not germane to the story," Times Washington Bureau Chief Doyle McManus said.

The Times spoke to several Defense Department officials before the article appeared. None expressed concern that publication could endanger U.S. troops.

Even before The Times published its article, the technology was featured in several news reports. Last year, NBC News broadcast a segment about the neutralizers, showing video footage of the device detonating improvised explosives in its path.

It would appear that the Pentagon dropped the ball on this one.  If they didn't want it out there they should have said something when asked.

What is wrong with these people do they really hate G.W. that much that they want us to loose?

Could it also be that Bush is playing politics with this.  I'm sure both him and the RNC see this as an opporunity to drum up more support from his core, perhaps they're sending out more literature about the EVIL LIBERAL MEDIA to solict more donations....

 

[MountainRunner]

I googled the Times article in question.  I don't see any important technical details.  In fact, the Times said they purposely ommitted such information to protect the troops.  So what is the finger pointing at the media about?  ....perhaps to draw attention away from the fact that "Pentagon bureaucracy is slowing the effort to protect American troops in Iraq."?

The rea lissue in the Times article is that "More than half of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq have been caused by roadside bombs, and the number of such attacks nearly doubled last year compared with 2004."  This technology has been tested for 10 months and yet not a single unit has been deployed.  Why is this?

"There's a bureaucracy that really slows things down, and sometimes people don't have the same sense of urgency," said one officer involved in the effort to counter the bombs. "That's where my frustration comes in."

The officer declined to be identified for this article because he feared retribution from superiors.

Here is the article if you're interested:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-ied12feb12,0,288814.story?coll=la-home-headlines[/i]

 

[scm77]

I googled the Times article in question.  I don't see any important technical details.

No important technical details??  It describes exactly how the vehicle neutralizes IED's.

A metal boom that extends from the vehicle's chassis emits high-powered electric pulses — military officials call it "man-made lightning" — that set off the detonators on the bombs.

The article says the "JIN" destroyed 90% of IEDs during testing.  It what President Bush said in his speech is true ("Within five days of the publication, using details from that article, the enemy had posted instructions for defeating this new technology on the Internet").  Then that was a pretty f*cking stupid thing for the LA Times to print.

Edit: And it was stupid of the LA Time to print it even if the enemy didn't actually use the article for it's instructions on how to defeat the JIN.

 

[Sheerin]

No important technical details??  It describes exactly how the vehicle neutralizes IED's.

Yeah, I wouldn't say the article describes exactly how it does it, well in a sense it does but only in general terms.  What's quoted below akin to saying a bullet kills by being fired at a high velocity before entering a human body or a TLAM works by exploding over the target. 

"The remote-controlled device blows up roadside bombs with a directed electrical charge, and based on Votel's assessment, then-deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz recommended investing $30 million in research and sending prototypes to Iraq for testing. "

 

[kincanucks]

the neutralizer units had still not been sent to combat units in Iraq.

Are we not missing a bigger issue here? Why weren't the devices over in Iraq saving lives before the article came out?

 

[medicineman]

To answer the question, I seem to remember that they prematurely let the cat out of the bag about the attack on Goose Green in the Falklands in 82 - why would that be any different now?

MM

 

[Sheerin]

I disagree with you, there are a few things about Bush statement that don't make sense, first and foremost the one about how the Iraqi's have already developed a way to neutralize this new device.  I wonder how they know this considering the unit hasn't, supposedly, been used in the Iraqi theatre.

I swear this speech sounds like Bush trying to drum up support for his government, with approval ratings in the low 30s I'm sure he and his cohorts would do anything to make themselves look good.  And the best way to make yourself look good is to make the guy next to you look worse.  Its politics afterall...

And you still haven't responded to the fact that Pentagon had the chance to say "no, we don't want this detail printed' and they did absolutely nothing.  Its the responsibility of the DoD and Military to decide what is OPSEC material and not that of the press.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Should be breaking rocks in Levenworth.

 

[MountainRunner]

I can get more data on US military weaponry from wired magazine online. 
In fact, if you want a more comprehensive look at cutting edge military technology, just google. 
I still hold firm that the technical details that were printed aren't anything to get excited about.  One sentence hardly tells us how to build or disable such a device.

Gentleman, with all respect, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. 

 

[Sheerin]

First off it is not "his" government!  Secondly, I could give a rats *** what the press thinks!  Thirdly, what is so important about printing anything about countermeasures to Ides in a newspaper?  What the hell are they thinking?  They are moral cowards!

Despite how constitutionally accurate it may be, Bush is seen as the face and leader of the United States' Government and therefore when things go wrong, especially when both lower houses are run by his party, he is to blame; his recent approval ratings point to that. 

Well as to your third point, perhaps the press wanted to point out that the pentagon has a viable solution for fighting Ed's yet seems to be dragging its heels on it.  Perhaps this scrutiny is not justified, perhaps the reason it hasn't been deployed is because it is really useless or perhaps there are other problems. 

But then again, what do I know?  You're an intelligence officer and know much more than I do (no sarcasm intended), I just see this as Bush attacking the media to help bolster his support.  Because really, if you think the DoD was really pissed, do you think they'd use the president to tell them?

cheers

 

[Sheerin]

humble, aren't we?

 

[Sheerin]

Sometimes there is no point in responding, however this is not one of those times.  I think you quote might be confusing another form of government (parlimentary perhaps?) with the current U.S. model. 

Sorry, bad terminology on my part, what I was getting at was that the Republicans control both the House of Representivies and the Senate.  However, my main point was regardless of how constitutionally accurate it may be, the president is seen as the face and the head of your government, and really the Republican National Committee - though i guess one could argue that he really is the head of the party since it is he who appointed the last two Chairmen.