New York Times sues DoD over Domestic Spying

gbobeck writes "Yahoo News is reporting that the New York Times has filed suit against the U.S. Defense Department. The suit is seeking the release of all relevant documents and a list of people targeted by the NSA domestic spying program. As stated in the article: 'The Times had requested the documents in December under the Freedom of Information Act but sued upon being unsatisfied with the Pentagon's response that the request was being processed as quickly as possible, according to the six-page suit filed at federal court in New York.'"

Re:Pointless

[raehl]

Even if the lawsuit is not successful, it still serves two purposes:

- It highlights the fact that the government engaged in warrantless wiretaps, and helps make more of the public aware of the problem and keep them thinking about the problem
- It helps NYT sell papers with articles about how the government engaged in warrantless wiretaps.

We probably are not too concerned with the second, but the motivation provided to the paper by the second causes the paper to act in a manner that gives us the benefits of the first. Go Free Press.

Who they've spied on before

[br00tus]

When the talking heads on the corporate TV channels discuss this, usually they show clips of Republicans saying we need this to protect the US, and then the talking heads say the Democrats will look weak opposing it, although the Democrats don't control either house of Congress anyway. One thing they don't discuss is how domestic spying has been abused in the past. Nixon's lieutenants sent people to break into and bug the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate hotel. The FBI not only illegally monitored and broke into offices of people engaged in political activity, like Martin Luther King, Jr., they actually got involved, sending him threats to him and a lot of other people. There are many memos about actions done in an effort to disrupt political movements. One of their aims was stated in an FBI memo, to 'prevent the rise of a "messiah" who could unify, and electrify, the militant black nationalist movement. Malcolm X might have been such a "messiah;" he is the martyr of the movement today. Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael and Elijah Muhammed all aspire to this position.'

US intelligence has stepped out of its role of supposedly defending the US, to taking an active, partisan role in US politics. In fact, the beginnings of the FBI were in the first red scare right after the Russian Revolution, the FBI was created with this political police role.

Another thing I hear on TV is how the Church committee tied the arms of the intelligence community in the 1970s. It tied it because "former" CIA agents like E. Howard Hunt were caught in the Watergate trying to wiretap the Democrats phone lines, they tied it because the intelligence community was not only illegally domestically spying in a partisan political manner, it was actively involved in trying to disrupt political groups. Even after these supposed controls were put on, it seemed like this did little good in the 1980s when these big brother institutions came out once again against anyone opposed to US intervention in Central America. The FBI were spying on nuns who were unhappy that teh Archbishop of El Salvador was killed, as well as four nuns who were raped, tortured and killed in El Salvador as well, with most evidence pointing towards military involvement, a military Reagan was supporting. When the lawsuits, FOIAs etc. flew about, it was even found that FBI agents and informants were discussing trying to seduce the US nuns against sending military supplies down there. This is after the "shackles" of the Church committee, which have been lifted and then some by the PATRIOT act.

Which doesn't even get into the question of why the US needs "defending". Everything the US does worldwide is called "defense". Farmers in western Nepal are fighting their landlords and the Nepal dictator who just abolished Congress - the US is sending rifles to the dictator so he can put down this rebellion (along with other countries like France). About half of all military spending worldwide is by the US. If the US can't leave alone farmers in western Nepal who are rebelling against their landlords and the dictator due to their maltreatment, can it be surprised some people somewhere in the world are unhappy with this? Osama Bin Laden stated long before 9/11 his unhappiness with US troops in Saudi Arabia (another dictatorship), in his eyes he saw himself as a defender of his home country, and the US as the attacker, and it seems pretty clear to me who drew first blood. The US will always be under threat as long as it seeks an empire. Just take the UK as an example - after decades, the IRA finally gave up military attacks in England because they were willing to accept a political solution offered - and as soon as that happened subways in London began exploding again due to British troops in Iraq. I think the forces of Halliburton, ExxonMobil and so forth are moving of their own accord, and only a great deal of effort can truly secure the US, by preventing this worldwide intervention.

Re:we need to thank them

[gfxguy]

Actually, the NYT, like most media outlets, has an agenda, and they selectively choose what information they try to get out to the people. They didn't show the muslim cartoons, they went on and on about Abu Ghraib, but refused to show or write about the evidence of Saddam Hussein's torturing (many thousands of pictures came out at about the same time as the Abu Ghraib pictures).

I'm not saying this is a bad article, or that the information shouldn't be out there, but the NYT only stands up for it's own agenda. So kudos for this story, but shame on NYT overall, in my opinion.

Re:we need to thank them

[slashname3]

If such information was, in fact, in that data, it would be classified and redacted in no time.

So if the info will be redacted and classified what good does it do for the NYTs to sue for it? They just want to exercise their lawyers? Or do they just want to publish a story showing that they can not get that data?

There are somethings that do not need to be made public. This is more about the NYTs trying to make a story out of nothing than anything else.