Major Newspapers, |
Friday, June 1. 2007AP's PrioritiesTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I don't understand, how does publishing a picture of a pool compromise national security?
Not being either a terrorist or a CIA expert, I don't know. But neither does the AP reporter, so why chance it?
AP made a boo-boo, but, didn't the contractor make an even bigger one by posting the plans? After all, once it's made public AP has a legitimate right to write about it.
The contractor obviously screwed up, and AP has the right to report the screw up, but do they need to publish two pictures and include the url for contractor's Web site as well?
I mean, come on...
If I was someone who wanted to launch a mortar round into an area, I would sure appreciate the knowledge that there is a pool there. Might make it more worthwhile to shoot at.
Shan,
It's not directly a domestic security issue for the "American homeland," but if you've ever worked in security and if you paid ANY attention to the hostage situation in the US embassy in Iran (1979), you'd understand why it's a serious problem and a yes, a "compromise." Somebody dropped the ball on this, the plans should have been kept confidential and for official use only, even if not initially classified. Imagine, just for a moment, before you start forming a politically driven opinion on this subject, just IMAGINE having the job of security for this embassy knowing that the plans for your building were released and publicized, as this surely will be. The AP should be thoughtful and respectful enough to not release it, but I suspect the damage is already done and it may not matter what they do. Of course, AP will automatically assume this as well and therefor go forward and make a buck on it anyway. And unfortunately, they may do it at a great cost to people they don't even know or care about. Business as usual for the MSM and AP. And people think "corporations" are so big and bad... what about those who call anything and everything "news worthy," no matter what the cost? To the AP, this is potentially as great as the NY Times "pulitzer" prize winning intelligence exposes, no? Except, in all of these cases, there was no real good, constructive reason for publishing any of it. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/time-j28.shtml http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/013794.php ...and AP's own winning history, not really (which is also linked from the above Powerline Blog link): http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010066.php#010066 ...
AP will continue to do everything they can to hurt America's war effort until the day we pull out. At that point the liberal media will call it another Vietnam and continue their campaign to elect more socialists.
That's just the way it is.
Having worked in US Embassies in many countries, including throughout the Middle East, I know that the missions do all they possibly can to not reveal where various functions are conducted, where various people might be found at predictable hours of the day. In fact, local police generally cooperate to ensure that photos are not taken except from areas/angles considered the least compromising and always from the outside. (Visitors' cameras are not permitted within the buildings.)
Even if perfect ignorance cannot be insured, we simply do not want to make it obvious where, for example, the Ambassador's office it, where the child care facility is, where you just might want to lob a mortar on a Saturday afternoon to take out the Marine Security Guard Detachment. The situation varies country by country. The Ambassador's residence in London, is widely and publicly known. Where his bedroom is, though, is not. In Iraq, where diplomats from any country are fair game to some group or other, you want to complicate targeting as much as possible. A plan with labels on the buildings makes attacks all the easier, if not more likely.
As much as I dislike AP, I think this is a non-issue. The only picture there is, as #1 pointed out, the pool. It's not as if they posted the details of the building layout.
The AP published not one, but two pictures and included the url for contractor's Web site too (where the 10 original images were first published).
Sure, report the story -- but complete with pics and the original Web site? Jeesh...
If you read the story, it mentions that 10 images, some detailed with labels were mistakenly posted. It's more than just the pool.
Chances are they'll have to alter some of the internal arrangement to ke sure the plans are no longer accurate.
Uh, sure, that's all that's available--on the AP's website--now, but "The 10 images included a scheme of the overall layout of the compound, plus depictions of individual buildings including the embassy itself, office annexes, the Marine Corps security post, swimming pool, recreation center and the ambassador's and deputy ambassador's residences."
this IS the AP at its bareknuckle stupidest. That is to say their best.
Nothing would illustrate the pathalogical political malevelence better than this. Rich
Someone should post the 6 digit grid coordinate for AP headquarters next time they "offend" Islam.
The AP headquarters is at:
450 W. 33rd St. New York, NY 10001 Here's the Google maps link: http://www.google.com/maps?q=450+W+33rd+St,+New+York,+NY+10001,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=40.753054,-73.999486&spn=0.001426,0.002503&t=k&z=19&om=1
One mortar round into that bank of air conditioners will force the AP'ers to open their windows for ventilation. Then we attack from the windward side...
Only 10 comments in, and you guys are already modeling the old cliche about conservatives being bloodthirsty?
So passe.
Bloodthirsty in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that milquetoast in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
You can't legislate morality, that's why we have weapons.
Maybe you're working with a different definition of Bloodthirsty then, because I've been taught to think of it as unreasonably violent. And being unreasonable in the pursuit of liberty is not a virtue, it's what crazy people like Timothy McVeigh do.
But that last sentence? Least reassuring thing I've ever heard in my life. |
SearchSupporterAlamsed reviewed
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> |