Still NO MENTION WHATSOEVER in the local paper 100 miles south of DC. The journalists I used to work with seem to agree with Sen. Mark Warner about "balancing" our essential rights with the need for safety and security, no matter the cost to those rights or the amount of lying necessary. They fully approve, so why give the public a chance to understand and object.
February 6, 2011 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...
You're stringing together interesting pieces that seem to make a bigger picture.
Keep it comin'.
February 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...
One of the excuses that they will give is that they need to restrict information because the suspects have family in Mexico who may be endangered by premature release of information regarding the suspects identities.
Which doesn't wash of course since the bad guys already know that information. But it does sound good to the public.
If one lie isn't enough, tell more of them until everyone is suitably confused. That way you don't have to reveal anything you don't want to.
February 7, 2011 at 7:33 AM
[Image]
"I want you to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that during my term as President, justice will be pursued fairly, fully, and impartially, no matter who is involved. This office is a sacred trust and I am determined to be worthy of that trust." -- Richard Nixon, First Watergate Speech, 30 April 1973
- The FBI is now defending its decision not to reveal information to the public regarding the murder investigation of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
Normally, law enforcement releases information that involves the killing of an officer. But in Terry's case, the FBI has remained silent and will not say why it has yet to charge the suspects with Terry's murder.
When Agent Terry was shot to death the night of December 14th in Peck Canyon, the FBI chose to release only certain information, and not much at that. Nine On Your Side learned Agent Terry was fatally wounded taking part in an operation targeting border bandits. The FBI also revealed it had arrested four suspects caught near the shooting scene. But the FBI would not release the names of the people in custody.
Seventeen days later, KGUN9 reporter Steve Nuñez called the FBI again. This time the FBI did talk, but only to defend its policy of maintaining its secrecy.
And that story ran on the 31st of December last year! Here's a calendar so you can keep track of Janet Napolitano's definition of "swift."
"Profiles in Cover-up. When is some big media type going ask Janet Napolitano what the meaning of "swift justice" is? Plus a calendar to keep track."
3 Comments -
Still NO MENTION WHATSOEVER in the local paper 100 miles south of DC.
The journalists I used to work with seem to agree with Sen. Mark Warner about "balancing" our essential rights with the need for safety and security, no matter the cost to those rights or the amount of lying necessary. They fully approve, so why give the public a chance to understand and object.
February 6, 2011 at 5:19 PM
You're stringing together interesting pieces that seem to make a bigger picture.
Keep it comin'.
February 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM
One of the excuses that they will give is that they need to restrict information because the suspects have family in Mexico who may be endangered by premature release of information regarding the suspects identities.
Which doesn't wash of course since the bad guys already know that information. But it does sound good to the public.
If one lie isn't enough, tell more of them until everyone is suitably confused. That way you don't have to reveal anything you don't want to.
February 7, 2011 at 7:33 AM