NYT Former Exec Editor Misrepresents Bradley Manning

from the wow dept

Wed, Mar 13th 2013 3:49am — Mike Masnick

A few days ago, the former executive editor of the NY Times, Bill Keller wrote about the Bradley Manning situation, in which he discusses Manning's revelation that he originally tried to go directly to the NY Times and the Washington Post, but was ignored, leading to the decision to approach Wikileaks. Keller's piece is basically an attempt by the NY Times to rewrite history to make Keller and the NY Times feel better. I wouldn't say that Keller lies necessarily, because he might just be very, very ignorant, but there is no doubt that he blatantly misrepresents what Manning said and did.

Specifically, Keller argues first, that Manning was trying to dump all of the information he had, indiscriminately, and the wise reporters at the NY Times would have figured out what was really important: "If Manning had connected with The Times, we would have found ourselves in a relationship with a nervous, troubled, angry young Army private who was offering not so much documentation of a particular government outrage as a chance to fish in a sea of secrets." Furthermore, he argues that Manning's motivations in making his speech to the court last week somehow contradict the only other clear statement into Manning's motivations: his 2010 chat logs with Adrian Lamo that Lamo turned over to the government, leading to Manning's arrest. Those chat logs were leaked to the press, and Keller argues that Manning's reasoning for leaking the material is not clear, summarizing it as:

His political views come across as inchoate. When asked, he has trouble recalling any specific outrages that needed exposing. His cause was "open diplomacy" or — perhaps in jest — "worldwide anarchy."

Furthermore, Keller insults the many people who have supported Manning by suggesting that Manning has created his current views based on what his supporters have told him.

However, as multiple people shot back, this is simply untrue. Author Greg Mitchell points out that Keller is flat out "wrong" and that if he actually read the chat logs, Manning lays out his reasoning, which is entirely consistent with his statement in court. He points out that contrary to Manning "having trouble recalling any specific outrages," Manning has no problem doing so, pointing to examples of corruption in favor of Iraqi prime minister Maliki (rounding up dissidents who were just exercising basic free speech rights), along with the now famous Collateral Murder video. Mitchell points out that for Keller to claim that Manning had not mentioned anything specific, is simply wrong:

More from the Lamo chat log: It virtually opens with Manning saying he had seen evidence of "awful things" such as at Gitmo and Bagram. Then he mentions "criminal political dealings" and cites the "buildup to the Iraq war." He details what he saw on the "Collateral Murder" video and why he wanted it released ("I want people to see the truth"). He wants to get this and much else out (he IDs more) because it might "actually change something." As for the State Dept. cables, he hopes they will spark "worldwide discussion, debates and reforms." Yet Keller claims this was all "vague."

When Nathan Fuller, a supporter of Manning, emailed Keller about all of this, Keller doubled down and stood by his original assessment, saying nothing more than that he believed his characterization is "fair." When pressed, Keller reveals his general attitude towards Manning's supporters, claiming that they have "assembled a coherent political motivation by fishing here and there in the Lamo file." As opposed to Keller who quoted five whole words from the transcripts and took even those out of context?

Meanwhile, Daniel Ellsberg, who probably identifies with Manning more than anyone else in the world, having famously given the Pentagon Papers to the NY Times decades ago, has responded angrily to Keller (video) stating that: "It shows him as an arrogant, ignorant, condescending person. A very smart person who manages to be stupid in certain ways.... What we've heard are people like the NY Times who have consistently slandered [Bradly Manning]." Ellsberg goes on to point out that there was a ton of material that Manning had access to, but which he chose not to disclose. He first mocks Keller's description of Manning as a "boy" who was "indiscriminately dumping" files, and notes that the evidence shows otherwise:

He, personally, had access to material higher than top secret, higher than Bill Keller has ever seen.... He chose not to put out the top secret communications intelligence, to which he clearly had access. He put out only material that he felt would be embarrassing [rather than harmful], and which, three years later we can say, only was embarrassing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bill keller, bradley manning, motivations, reporting, wikileaks
Companies: ny times, wikileaks

50 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 4:05am

And I thought deliberate misrepresentation only happened on Law and Order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 13 Mar 2013 @ 4:10am

"chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
WHAT reporter wouldn't JUMP at that chance? To become the next Bob Woodward? -- Knowing and willing stenographers for the war-mongers, that's who. Don't forget that Judy Miller was channel for numerous outright lies. Or that Condaleeza Rice knowingly lied about "mushroom clouds". Or that the entire Iraq war was ginned up out of nothing as has been proven by the total lack of WMD.

I could go on. If you follow what we now know are lies back to 2002-2003, you can't possibly be left with any shred of support for the Iraq war or the lying gov't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 4:16am
  
  Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
  I would support the forces, but not the 'war' they're in.
  
  Also, politicos lie, news at 11.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Designerfx (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 5:54am
    
    Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
    this is the problem.
    
    how do you separate the soldiers who want to defend their country from being forced to do so by supporting political interests which have no focus on defending the country?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Arthur Moore (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 7:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
      That has always been the question.
      
      It doesn't mean that the soldiers are at fault, or even there superiors. In the end a military that's under the control of a civilian government is under the control of politicians. For good or bad, that's the way it is.
      
      Of course, there are always going to be a few bad apples. How a country deals with them has always been what defines it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        the words "a few bad apples" should always be followed by the rest of the saying "...spoils the barrel�, or sometimes "the bin". Implying that if left where they are "bad apples" will have a negative impact on everyone they work with. Another favorite "A fish rots from the head down.".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - art guerrilla (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
      "how do you separate the soldiers who want to defend their country..."
      
      simple, wait until we're actually, you know, ATTACKED ON OUR SOIL, and see who comes running out of their house with a gun...
      
      running around the globe killing (mostly) brown, (mostly) poor, (mostly) moose limb nekkid apes for the benefit of transnational korporate 'people', is NOT 'defending' OUR country; and ANYONE who is too stupid to know that, is beyond hope and should be tossed in the soylent green hopper...
      
      otherwise, the military is simply an employer of last resort for 80-90% of the poor schmucks who enlist...
      
      what ELSE are they going to tell themselves ? that they are killing brown people so korporate krooks can loot and pillage the globe unopposed ? ? ?
      
      no, sheeple who wise up to that and start questioning unka sam's ah-thor-i-tie will end up like manning, or worse, tillmanized...
      
      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      eof
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Haudenosaun, 13 Mar 2013 @ 5:31am
  
  Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
  Nor any support and respect for mainstream media. With few exceptions, they are the voice of corporations and it's their narrative that is put forward and their skewing of history.
  
  Wikileaks and Bradley Manning attempted to circumvent this control and that's their "crime" in the eyes of the media. Bradley Manning is a hero, no less so than Daniel Ellsberg.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Haudenosaun, 13 Mar 2013 @ 5:40am
  
  Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
  Nor any support and respect for mainstream media. With few exceptions, they are the voice of corporations and it's their narrative that is put forward and their skewing of history.
  
  Wikileaks and Bradley Manning attempted to circumvent this control and that's their "crime" in the eyes of the media. Bradley Manning is a hero, no less so than Daniel Ellsberg.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 6:43am
    
    Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
    I'm so sick of people saying Manning is a hero. He is a criminal that needs to be put to death for his crimes. He joined the army as a volunteer and took an oath. He broke that oath. War is hell, people get killed and terrible things happen. Governments lie, always have and always will. The bottom line is that he is a traitor to his country and to his fellow commrades at arms. If you have never been a soldier than you should stfu!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TG, 13 Mar 2013 @ 6:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
      As a former solider (Desert Shield/Storm vet) you sir/ma'am are an idiot. The oath is to "defend the Constitutiton from ALL enemies foreign AND domestic". Right now some of the BIGGEST enemies are domestic and are elected. Bradley Manning was doing what any good soldier should do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 6:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
      don't worry manning will get his just deserts, Governments might and do lie, but so does manning. So does masnick and so does a lot of other people here.
      
      and anyway, who cares what happens to manning, or his coward mate hiding in an Embassy, Assholeigs
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 7:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        More than those who would care about someone who talks to solar panels, you unimaginative jackass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
      Governments lie, always have and always will. The bottom line is that he is a traitor to his country
      Please do explain. It sure seems that what you're saying here is that exposing the governments specific lies is the problem. General knowledge of the fact that governments lie is OK, though.
      
      Also, you don't seem to be all that interested in striving for a government that doesn't lie. Status quo all the way baby. Are you the kind of idiot that decried the emancipation proclamation because "black people are slaves, always have been and always will be"? Would you have thrown John Hancock under the horse carriage because "kings are our sovereigns, always have been and always will be"? Would you have called for Martin Luther's excommunication because "the Catholic church sells indulgences, always has and always will". Are you the same kind of idiot who if you had been Iraqi would be defending Saddam by saying "Governments kill citizens of their own country, always have and always will"?
      
      I ask only because that's what you just said. It's OK for governments to lie because they always have and they always will, and anyone who exposes their lies is a traitor and should be punished to the full extent of the law, and probably even beyond that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dennis deems (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
      If you have never been a soldier than you should stfu!
      This is what you fought for? So that your fellow countrymen might stfu? Have you even read this nation's constitution?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
      If you were ever a soldier, you were an idiot who wouldn't have survived the Nuremberg Trials. I feel sorry for anyone who ever had to serve with or under you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 7:04am
  
  Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
  "Or that the entire Iraq war was ginned up out of nothing as has been proven by the total lack of WMD."
  
  Wait...what? There wasn't a total lack of WMD. There was a total lack of nuclear weapons (though there was evidence that Saddam in fact DID have a nuke program several years before the invasion and he buried it in the sand once he knew the inspectors were on their way in). If you want to say the government scare mongered the public to whip up support for the war, I won't disagree with you, but let's not pretend that the Saddam regime both wasn't in possession of chemical and biological weapons programs (in fact, he'd used them against the Kurds in his own land) or that he didn't absolutely have to go....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TG, 13 Mar 2013 @ 7:13am
    
    Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
    His "stockpiles" of chemical weapons were a) severely depleted b)constantly monitored/tracked by the U.S. and others and c) had been sold to him by who? The U.S.
    Saddam also lacked the capacity to deliver what little he had in any meaningful of significant way. In regards to his so called nuclear program, that was utterly destroyed by the Israeilies in the 80's and he was nowhere near being able to enrich uranium much less create a bomb. Finally in regards to any type of biological program that was virtually non existent and once again lacked any vector for delivery.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 7:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
      "His "stockpiles" of chemical weapons were a) severely depleted b)constantly monitored/tracked by the U.S. and others and c) had been sold to him by who? The U.S."
      
      That may all be true, but none of it really matters. They said they didn't have WMDs, when in fact they did, period, paragraph, full stop. Besides, this is simply one of the FOUR tests the UN has for when a nation loses it's sovereignty, but at least you've admitted Iraq failed that tests. The other tests are as follows.
      
      1. Violates the non-proliferation treaty - FAILED
      2. Acts as an aggressor upon other nations in war - FAILED
      3. Engages in international gangsterism/terrorism - FAILED
      4. Engages in acts of genocide - FAILED
      
      You can criticize the American government for scare-mongering, war-mongering, and lying, and you'd be right on every count, but none of that is an argument against going to war with Iraq. That war HAD to happen, and we mistaked our way into being on the right side of history on that one....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DCX2, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        Colin Powell stood before the UN and told them that Iraq was responsible for the Anthrax letters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg
        
        Mr. Powell's speech before the UN was used as evidence for the need to go to war.
        
        Iraq was not responsible for the Anthrax letters.
        
        An American citizen was most likely responsible for the Anthrax letters.
        
        The Iraq Survey Group - including members of the CIA and DOD - found that Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned, severely degraded chemical munitions were discovered. The ISG also found that Iraq abandoned its nuclear program in 1991 and abandoned its biological weapons program in 1995.
        
        Sorry, Dark Helmet, but you're just wrong. Even FactCheck.org disagrees with you; http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/
        
        If the war "had to" happen, why did we end Desert Storm before finishing the job? If Iraq's WMD were such a dangerous threat that we needed to invade them, why did we wait another 12 years after the Gulf War? The reason is because it DID NOT have to happen. The Iraq war was unnecessary. Iraq wasn't a threat to stability or world peace in 2003. It had no mobile biological weapons factories, as alleged by Colin Powell at the UN. The FBI interrogator who handled Saddam (WITHOUT TORTURE) even got him to admit that any appearance of a WMD program was a bluff to keep Iran off his back.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        "Colin Powell stood before the UN and told them that Iraq was responsible for the Anthrax letters."
        
        Again, yes, they lied. That isn't a reason to not go to war with Iraq, it's simply a reason to think our govt. lies.
        
        "Sorry, Dark Helmet, but you're just wrong. Even FactCheck.org disagrees with you;"
        
        Bullshit. That link actually says there WERE WMDs in Iraq, but they were from before the Gulf War, which is a meaningless distinction. Iraq said there were none. They lied. Period.
        
        "If the war "had to" happen, why did we end Desert Storm before finishing the job?"
        
        That's the right question, and the answer is that we should NOT have ended the war. We should have finished the job then and removed an international gangster from office.
        
        "The Iraq war was unnecessary."
        
        You can doom the Kurds to genocide if you wish. I choose not to because I don't believe in genocide.
        
        Beyond that, I listed the four ways the UN decides that a country has lost its sovereignty. You didn't disprove a single one of them for the obvious reason that are not dis-provable. The war was a just one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DCX2, 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        Forgive me for placing more weight upon a recognized institution such as FactCheck.org than you, but in my opinion you are clearly wrong. Iraq gave up the WMD program in 1995. Any WMD that was there was already declared and was in the process of being disposed and/or was already incapable of military usage. All undeclared WMD were destroyed in 1991. Period. End of story. Full stop. Insert other condescending platitudes here.
        
        As far as Iraq having lost its sovereignty, using those same standards, Israel has also lost its sovereignty. The fact is the UN never approved the invasion of Iraq, as the US did not wait for Iraq to be found in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441.
        
        And for the record, fuck you for saying I doomed anyone to genocide (for the record, he gassed one village, not the entire race, so your claims of genocide are a stretch). Innocent people never deserve to die, and there's a lot of killing going on all over the world, and we don't do fuck all about it. "Humanitarian reasons" are just a pretext to justify doing something we wanted to do for completely different and less ethical reasons.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        "Forgive me for placing more weight upon a recognized institution such as FactCheck.org than you, but in my opinion you are clearly wrong. Iraq gave up the WMD program in 1995. Any WMD that was there was already declared and was in the process of being disposed and/or was already incapable of military usage."
        
        That's both incorrect and short-sighted. First, in 2006 hundreds of weapons munitions were found that contained mustard gas or sarin nerve gas. While you're correct that that ammunition was degraded, the agents inside them were not, and could be exploited by terrorist or the Saddam regime. Per Army Colonel John Chu: "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction."
        
        "As far as Iraq having lost its sovereignty, using those same standards, Israel has also lost its sovereignty."
        
        Interesting theory. I wasn't aware they broke all four standards. What ethnic group have they attempted to genocide? What WMDs have they used? How have they repeatedly invaded AS THE AGGRESSOR other nations around them? What international gangsters or terrorists are they actively involved with?
        
        "The fact is the UN never approved the invasion of Iraq, as the US did not wait for Iraq to be found in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441."
        
        That the UN doesn't have the balls to enforce their own resolutions isn't an argument not to do the right thing ourselves. That's a non-starter.
        
        "And for the record, fuck you for saying I doomed anyone to genocide (for the record, he gassed one village, not the entire race, so your claims of genocide are a stretch)."
        
        Get mad all you want, I'm right. If we left Saddam alone, he'd have finished off the Kurds. And, btw, you might want to educate yourself on how EVERYONE, including the Iraqi government, says what Saddam did was genocide. You can turn your nose up at the gassing of 10k civilians. I'm not going to.
        
        http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/03/08/1988-Kurdish-massacre-labeled-genocide/UPI-934 71268062566/
        
        "Innocent people never deserve to die, and there's a lot of killing going on all over the world, and we don't do fuck all about it."
        
        Not being able to save the entire world isn't a reason not to save part of it. That's not an argument, it's an excuse not to do the difficult thing and go to war.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        Oh, and by the way, since you seem to think you're so on the up and up with what Saddam did to the Kurds:
        
        "for the record, he gassed one village, not the entire race, so your claims of genocide are a stretch"
        
        Proves you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
        
        Try 4500 villages, with 100k civilians killed and 90% of Kurd villages erased from the map. If you want to argue further, I suggest knowing what you're talking about first.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The dude, 13 Mar 2013 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        Interesting to find out that Dark Helmet is one of the "USA, USA, USA!" yelling crowd, disappointing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        "Interesting to find out that Dark Helmet is one of the "USA, USA, USA!" yelling crowd, disappointing."
        
        Oh, please, give me a break. I'm nothing of the sort, nor have I been in this thread. Try being nuanced enough to understand that you can think our govt. lying was wrong but the war was still the right thing to do. If you can't hold those two thoughts in your head at the same time, too bad for you, but I'm far from an American apologist....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The dude, 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        Calling me an idiot may not be the best way to react dear writer.
        With nuance dear mr Helmet you can excuse everything.
        
        What i really find annoying about this whole story (not so much the yes yellers, the "nuancers" (aka the "its different" crowd) ), is that you yanks created Saddam, armed him, blessed him (he may be a bastard but he is our bastard), as long as he would follow your way, knowing the kind of swine he was, knowing what he was capable of doing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        "You yanks"? Really? You'd condemn everyone in a country for what the government did in secret. Right. Keep on the moral high of your's. I'm pretty sure your government's past isn't all bright and shiny, either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The dude, 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        It doesn't have anything to do with moral high ground, but simply with the fact that everyone of us is responsible in part for what our government does, either by apathy, ignorance, fanaticism, or by willful blindness (of which ""you yanks" seem to have a lot).
        Its not a criticism to the people, its simply a way to referring to a country(i am not accusing the people ), but you will have to admit that if this issues ever have international consequences, it will not be said: "The united states government", but, "The United States".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        "Calling me an idiot may not be the best way to react dear writer."
        
        Gee, good thing I did nothing of the sort then, huh?
        
        "With nuance dear mr Helmet you can excuse everything."
        
        I have no idea what this is supposed to mean....
        
        "you yanks created Saddam"
        
        Er, no. We actually originally opposed him and helped arm the Northern Kurds against Saddam. We only worked w/him once Iran became what it is today.
        
        "armed him"
        
        To some extent, yes, but our role in arming him has been vastly overblown. Two American corporations gave him 1 of 4 chemical agents he used. Most of his WMD arms came from elsewhere. The Soviet Union also armed him heavily.
        
        "blessed him"
        
        Against Iran, sure we did. He was a secular bulwark against theocracy. We do that all the time.
        
        "knowing the kind of swine he was, knowing what he was capable of doing."
        
        Exactly how were we to know that he'd commit genocide?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ninja (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        I totally agree with you that Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power. And yet there are several other that should get the same treatment but you only see friendliness and sympathy from the US Govt. Let's not forget the US actively provided support and resources for dictatorships all over the world.
        
        That said, while I sort of agree with the war itself I believe the way it was conducted and especially how Saddam Hussein was dealt with were complete disasters. And there hasn't been visible improvement on how the troops deal with the locals (which includes crimes committed against them).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DCX2, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        Yeah, the US supporting tyrants, huh?
        
        Like Hussein in the 80s? Yeah, that's right - he was our ally in the 80s. We sold him chemical weapons, under the presumption that he'd use them on the Iranians (I guess we were a little upset about the Iranians overthrowing the puppet government we had installed a few years earlier, after our CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50s). But you see, then some Kurds tried to assassinate him, so he used the chemical weapons we gave him on those Kurds (hey, trying to assassinate a head of state is a "national security" problem right?). We didn't like the fact that he used our chemical weapons on someone who wasn't from Iran, so we used that to justify hanging him.
        
        Or maybe you meant Libya...that is, before we left Gaddafi out to dry?
        
        Or maybe you meant Egypt, before we left Mubarak out to dry?
        
        Or maybe you meant Bahrain? Or maybe you meant El Salvador?
        
        That doesn't even count our helping the "Freedom Fighters" like the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Or the Nicaraguan contras.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TG, 14 Mar 2013 @ 6:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
        The war with Iraq did not HAVE to happen in any way, shape or form. It was personal vendetta perpetrated by an idiot man child (Bush) and his cowardly hawkish master (Cheney). Saddam was contained and was a threat to no one other than his own people. He had no means of waging war against any of his neighbors. The war was predicated and waged upon lie after lie. Remember "mushroom clouds", "mobile bio terror labs" or maybe "Nigerian Uranium". The U.N. and every nation watching Iraq was fully aware of that Saddam's capabilities were. We were in no way on the "right side" of history in this one. Thousands of dead/wounded American (and other nations) solidiers and tens to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's. All for what? To satisfy a personal vendetta.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DOlz, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:41am
  
  Re: "chance to fish in a sea of secrets"
  There was a time when newspapers and their reporters would have jumped at chance to fish in a sea of secrets. Now it seems that they would rather get a press release from the people they are suppose to hold accountable. After all if you upset them you might lose out on all the valuable access they spoon feed you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 4:12am

I'm not surprised. His job depends on doing the pro-Govt propaganda (hah and they criticized Hugo Chavez). Some people value their petty jobs more than they value ethics, honesty and justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 4:20am
  
  Re:
  If people valuing ethics, honesty, and justice over their petty jobs was the norm, Techdirt have nothing to write about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Prashanth (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 5:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Would it be called "TechClean"?
    
    That aside, I've noticed that including but not limited to this article (and as I recall, TechDirt has responded negatively to other recent articles from him too), Bill Keller's articles have been getting so bad that I wonder if he has secretly been replaced by a poor robotic replica. I wonder if Bradley Manning would be OK with leaking that to the presses....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 5:47am

The problem with the NYT and a lot of other media organizations these days is they're too scared to speak out against the government. They're also too scared to always call out both parties when they blatantly lie, for fear of looking too liberal or conservative, and therefore hurting their ratings/viewership numbers.

These days with post-9/11 paranoia the NYT and others probably feared they'd be accused of putting America's national security at risk if they dared to publish Bradley Mannings leaked documents and videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DOlz, 13 Mar 2013 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  What newspapers seem to have forgotten was that in their heyday they were blatantly partisan. In their rush to become bland and risk adverse they are making themselves irrelevant. I can just hear today's editor saying, "no don't run that man bites dog article, the dog bites man story is safer".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
C Silver, 13 Mar 2013 @ 5:54am

Misinformation Central
Included in the NDAA legislative package is permission for the US Gov't to engage in propaganda against its own population. And just as the Executive branch has traded favors by halting banker prosecutions in return for cooperation in the blockade of funds to the government's growing list of conspiring enemies, POTUS oversees the very words that spew forth from bank-owned media whose editors are signatory to the wholesale conversion from watchdog to lapdog. Keller, former Vassal-in-Chief at the NY Times is merely bending to the ill wind from DC imposed by the medias' new, banking oligarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 5:56am

Bill Keller is a fucking scumbag...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dennis deems (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 7:20am

Sad
When I was a boy, the New York Times commanded respect. So much so that Stephen King ended one of his early novels with a joke about it and a subtle nod to Ellsberg. Now the paper itself is a joke, and the joke in King's novel surely falls flat to new readers, if they get it at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 7:25am

Doctors aren't supposed to operate on themselves, so why do we let newspapers report on themselves?

New York Times Judith Miller

New York Times Judith Miller

New York Times Judith Miller

New York Times Judith Miller

New York Times Judith Miller

New York Times Judith Miller

New York Times Judith Miller

New York Times Judith Miller

New York Times Judith Miller

New York Times Judith Miller

New York Times Judith Miller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 8:31am

So many lofty and wonderful notions mentioned here, some even bordering on the elevation of this defendant to sainthood. Yes, "St. Brad" had a nice ring to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  Too bad the Catholic church is anti-gay. They'd never go for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 11:27am

All the News that's Fit to Print
"LOL, yeah right!"
-NY Times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DB Cooper, 14 Mar 2013 @ 4:54am

Manning
What I see in most of the posts are younger people who are completely clueless about the world. Go out and get so sunshine. The world is full of some very bad people and sometimes those bad people hate even worse peple than we do. Many of these people are so discusting you want to wash your hands after you shack theirs. We use these vile people to assert our nation interests and people like manning only want anarchy and to bring attention to themselves no matter how many other people are hurt because of it. He should be shot and dumped in a septic tank somewhere to be forgotten forever as people like him always are. He's one of those vile discusting people we should never have to deal with. Don't put this peice of crap on a pedestal and make him into a hero because he isnt one. He just a pissant who would like to take us all down. If any of you actually work save your money and travel to the shitholes of the world and see what he wants for you. Or better yet join the marines and see it as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 14 Mar 2013 @ 7:51am

What I see in most of the posts are younger people who are completely clueless about the world. Go out and get so sunshine.

And what you think you are seeing is completly wrong.

Demographics of Techdirt readers:

79% age 25 or older (47% age 35 or older)
50% earn 50k/year or more
70% college educated

Source: Quantcast

So obviously you are the one being clueless here and the rest of your comment is nothing more than you shaking your fist at imaginary monsters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 14 Mar 2013 @ 7:52am
  
  Re:
  Whoops.
  
  Above comment intended as a reply to DB Cooper, Mar 14th, 2013 @ 4:54am
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 14 Mar 2013 @ 8:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    It is also kind of funny that you use "DB Cooper" as your moniker.
    
    Are you aware of the legend of D.B. Cooper? Not really a shining example of a law abiding citizen there.
    
    D. B. Cooper is a media epithet popularly used to refer to an unidentified man who hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft in the airspace between Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, on November 24, 1971. He extorted $200,000 in ransom and parachuted to an uncertain fate. Despite an extensive manhunt and an ongoing FBI investigation, the perpetrator has never been located or positively identified. The case remains the only unsolved air piracy in American aviation history. Source
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]