NY Times leaks photos from Manchester bombing

[Tobra]

This is not really political, per se, and I am optimistic the discussion can remain so.

NY Times leaks photos from Manchester bombing

This is not good at all, of course the newspaper does not feel they did anything wrong. Seems to me they made some fairly vital information about an ongoing investigation public.

British security officials reacted with fury to the leaks, with one telling the Financial Times that lives were being put at risk. The BBC also reported Thursday that the police in Manchester had stopped sharing information about the investigation with the US because of the ongoing leaks.

Images of the remnants of the backpack used in the bomb attack, evidence of shrapnel, and a possible detonator were all published by The New York Times along with a layout of where those killed by the blast were standing.

[Jim Richards]

The Times did not leak anything. US official(s) leaked information to the Times.

[Hugh R]

Agreed, but the Times didn't have to release the info, but they did. The US officials should be schit-canned.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

Agreed, but the Times didn't have to release the info, but they did. The US officials should be schit-canned.

As well as the Times people: Let's stop pretending that receipt and decimation of classified or sensitive information from "leakers" doesn't have consequences.

Tracing the source of the leak should be easy - then prosecute them.

[Baz]

This statement from the NYT shows what kind of riff-raft we are dealing with:

The paper said in a statement: ‘The images and information presented were neither graphic nor disrespectful of victims, and consistent with the common line of reporting on weapons used in horrific crimes.

‘We have strict guidelines on how and in what ways we cover sensitive stories. Our coverage of Monday’s horrific attack has been both comprehensive and responsible.’

[Evans, Marv]

The all mighty dollar leaks again. I wonder how much the Times paid for the info, and I'm sure they were anticipating their readership wouldn't be reduced by publishing it.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

The Times did not leak anything. US official(s) leaked information to the Times.

Point taken

They had to have known it was not information they should have been privy to, and should have proceeded accordingly.

[Jeff Higgins]

They published what they knew to be classified information. I believe that is a crime. The publishers and every reported and editor who were involved need to be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law. If they refuse to reveal their sources, they should be held in contempt, in prison, until such time as they do.

Time to take the gloves off with regard to these leakers and their customers in the press. It's much like the hooker/John relationship, wherein law enforcement has found greater success in going after the consumer rather than the provider. In this case, the staff at the Times who developed and signed off on this story are the "Johns", the customers, buying the goods. We need to drop the hammer on them, and hard.

[dafischer]

^^^This. Good analogy, Jeff.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

They published what they knew to be classified information.

How do you know they knew it was classified? For that matter, how do YOU know it was classified?

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

How do you know they knew it was classified? For that matter, how do YOU know it was classified?

Because the Brits said it was and are pissed?

They shared information with our intelligence agencies they felt sensitive and protected. It was on the NYTs desk in minutes.

Why?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

They published what they knew to be classified information. I believe that is a crime. The publishers and every reported and editor who were involved need to be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law. If they refuse to reveal their sources, they should be held in contempt, in prison, until such time as they do.

Time to take the gloves off with regard to these leakers and their customers in the press. It's much like the hooker/John relationship, wherein law enforcement has found greater success in going after the consumer rather than the provider. In this case, the staff at the Times who developed and signed off on this story are the "Johns", the customers, buying the goods. We need to drop the hammer on them, and hard.

This is stupid. You assume that the press knows the information to be classified, when we have, at the same time, a POTUS who blabs classified information all the time. The press held back on publishing the classified information that POTUS blabbed in that case. Who knows what the NYT knew or didn't know about classification level and/or the sensitivity to the UK investigation into this terror attack. Not a bunch of PPOT armchair QBs.

Also, WTF is this fixation on only going after the press, as you so eloquently posted above when something is leaked. What about the leakers? These are people in the administration running their mouths, just like POTUS. Go after them before shredding the 1st amendment. Or is the 2nd all you know or care about? GMAFB.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Because the Brits said it was and are pissed?

After it was published by the NYT.

Originally Posted by Seahawk

They shared information with our intelligence agencies they felt sensitive and protected. It was on the NYTs desk in minutes.

Why?

Because someone in the TRUMP administration blabbed it to the NYT

[oldE]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

The Times did not leak anything. US official(s) leaked information to the Times.

This to me puts the onus on the Britis . You do not share sensitive information with people who can't be trusted to know how to deal with it.
I think they will learn quickly whom to trust.

Best
Les

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

After it was published by the NYT.

Duh.

It could be the Lincoln Administration...it matters not to me: Find the leakers, prosecute the leakers. This goes beyond politics into intel sharing and methods.

Why is this hard to understand?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by oldE

This to me puts the onus on the Britis . You do not share sensitive information with people who can't be trusted to know how to deal with it.
I think they will learn quickly whom to trust.

Best
Les

^^^this

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Duh.

It could be the Lincoln Administration...it matters not to me: Find the leakers, prosecute the leakers. This goes beyond politics into intel sharing and methods.

Why is this hard to understand?

Duh. Re-read 2nd paragraph of post #12 (by me) in this thread.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Duh. Re-read 2nd paragraph of post #12 (by me) in this thread.

You win, Jim.

The Times did not knowingly take information supplied by the British to a source trusted by the British and, leaked to them from that source, publish it without the consent of the British.

Ponderous.



Trump is responsible because he is at the helm.

I welcome your support in finding out who compromised our ally.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Because the Brits said it was and are pissed?

They shared information with our intelligence agencies they felt sensitive and protected. It was on the NYTs desk in minutes.

You of all people should know the difference between "felt to be sensitive" and "classified."

[nota]

so any country can make anything classified at any time on any subject

and some here want to punish anyone who publicly discloses whatever is classified ?
even if they do not know it is classified

what if kim in NK does not want his BS disclosed
do you really want our citizens punished for that ?