Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Re: Replies to NYT, and Congress and Constitutional Coup d' etat

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:46 PM
Subject: The NYT's Unconscionable Decision to Sit on the NSA Story for a Year

Dean Velvel,

I think that reasonable people can disagree on whether the subject warrantless wiretapping is illegal. I think they can also disagree as to whether it is desirous as a means of developing and using intelligence for security purposes. I don't intend to debate those points here. My issue here is that breathless, knee-jerk commentary has completely overshadowed the fact that the New York Times purposely and with full knowledge disclosed classified information concerning secret wire-tapping deemed necessary for national security reasons.

Don't we need to separate the privacy debate from the leak issue? Even if you're right about the wiretapping being illegal and wrong, don't we need to condemn the New York Times for disclosing classified information?


----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Fm: SUZAN MAZUR,

Dear Lawrence,

Many thanks for further illuminating the problems at the New York Times in your piece for CounterPunch over the weekend Lawrence R. Velvel: the NYT's Unconscionable Decision to Sit on the NSA Story. The paper is out of control and a New York embarrassment at this point.

Fyi -- I've written a couple of pieces for CounterPunch about the theft of one of my stories by the New York Times magazine & Ron Suskind, which the Times was forced to acknowledge. CounterPunch: Suzan Mazur: The New York Times: Paper of Record and Rip-Off. CounterPunch: Suzan Mazur: The New York Times Fesses Up to Another Rip Off

Also, here's an eye-opening interview I just did with the inimitable Oscar Muscarella about Sulberger, et al., conflict of interest re the current Rome antiquities trial, Euphronios pieces, etc. Scoop: Met Antiquities Whistleblower Oscar White Muscarella.

Best Regards,
Suzan Mazur

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:06 AM
Subject: NYT's Unconscionable Dec-comment!

RE: The NYT's Unconscionable Decision to Sit on the NSA Story for a Year
By Lawrence R. Velvel January 7/8, 2006

Nice piece on the Counterpunch site this weekend.
The first question that needs to be addressed is why did the NYT withhold the s tory?
From my vantage point there are several reasons.

The NYT & their reporters--particularly Judy Miller played a prominent role in setting the stage for Bush’s invasion and occupation in Iraq. The fact that a lot of this reporting--presence of WMDs, etc.--was crap has created immense problems for Bush and US corporate media.

Now, what are we faced with? Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have developed into military, political and economic disasters. Yesterday, Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia Economist released a study suggesting that the war in Iraq may well end up costing trillions of dollars.

One of the major charges against Nazi German at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials was Crimes against the peace. Given the shaky justification for this war, it would seem that Bush and his associates along with members of the NYT, who actively participated in promoting this war, are potentially guilty of war crimes. No doubt, this has figured into the NYT actions.

Thank you,

Paul Billings
Swarthmore, PA

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:28 AM
Subject: Your " Congress and the Constitution Coup d 'Etat" article

Dear Professor,

I might argue that you are a little late with your diagnosis. Throughout American history, many instances have occurred prior. You could start with Dis-Honest Abe and his war of northern aggression or W. Wilson and his prolonging the blood shed in Europe with U.S. troops' late entry into W.W. I, and him breaking his no war pledge or FDR's socialistic programs and attempting to "load" and expand the Supreme Court with "his" jurists or LBJ with his "Civil Rights" various programs and their subsequent exaggerated adulteration, his Viet Nam War or my personal choice: The 1965 Immigration and Reform Act, which ended the "republic" with taxation without representation for "white" Americans. This racist act is still going strong after forty years and supported by both treasonous political parties; diversity triumphed over representative democracy; tyranny, anyone ?

Happy New Year 2006 A.D.


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home