Skip to main content

View Diary: "Drone Rule Book": It Doesn't Exist, Except on the New York Times' Front Page (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  looking for the evidence to back up the title (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot

    which certainly implies that the New York Times got it wrong, by claiming that the supposed secret rule book that the Times reported on does not "exist."

    But there is no evidence at all in this diary that backs up the title, and in fact, your diary is about something else altogether then whether the rule book exists or not.

    As far as this: "the Obama administration's "drone rule book" is so secret that the government can neither confirm or deny its existence"

    There is nothing in the NY Times story about that. What is in the story is that the drone program in Pakistan ITSELF is "so secret the administration will neither confirm nor deny."

    The NY Times did not attempt to get a confirmation or denial about the "drone rule book," at least such is not reported in this story.

    There is also nothing in the New York Times story about "authorized leaks" -- despite your use of that term in quotes, which certainly gives your readers the impression the NY Times reported that the leakers were "authorized."

    Instead the story cites "two administration officials" as sources, and specifically quotes only one official, who it identifies as "speaking on condition of anonymity."

    Four other people, including Obama, were quoted in the NY Times story.  so, in fact, despite your claim, the "vast majority of quotes" in this story are from identified sources.

    I expect there's plenty more "slips 'tween the cup and lip" as far as reporting the facts in the NY Times story, but I'll stop there.

    I know you don't care much about details, that your feelings about how things must be are more important to you than facts, but I hope Daily Kos readers take the time to read the story itself, instead of just this flawed and emotional (and careless) intepretation of it. It's an interesting story.

    •  The title is a reference to the Obama (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Agathena, allenjo, Garrett, aliasalias

      administrations "Glomar" responses to FOIA requests about the drone program: that the government "cannot confirm or deny the existence of the program" but is willing to tell the New York Times about it.

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 12:25:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but is willing to tell the New York Times about it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias

        Shouldn't we bring as citizens a charge against those who told the NY Times under the Espionage Act?

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

        by allenjo on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 02:54:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  So what about drone execution policy? (0+ / 0-)

      Process is important. I see in this diary that there is little to speak for it. I see little more in the NYT story.

      When are we going to move beyond what looks like willy nilly? Working on it. How about suspending it until it can be conducted constitutionally?

      He Got Osama. How far are we willing to stretch that predicate?

      Courage is contagious. - Daniel Ellsberg

      by semiot on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 02:51:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site