Public editor reveals New York Times editor decided to hold wiretap story on eve of 2004 presidential election

The Raw Story | Public editor reveals New York Times editor decided to hold wiretap story on eve of 2004 presidential election: "RAW STORY | Published: Saturday August 12, 2006
...
Executive editor Bill Keller tells the paper's ombudmsman that "internal discussions" about publishing a story on domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency ended up "dragging on for weeks" before the November 2nd, 2004 election.

"The climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election," Keller tells Calame.
...
"So why did the Dec. 16 article say The Times had 'delayed publication for a year,' specifically ruling out the possibility that the story had been held prior to the Nov. 2 election?" Calame asks Keller. ...

say what you like in the US, just as long as you don't ask awkward questions about America's role in the Middle East

The Observer | Comment | The land of the free - but free speech is a rare commodity: "Henry Porter | Sunday August 13, 2006 | The Observer

You can say what you like in the US, just as long as you don't ask awkward questions about America's role in the Middle East

It used to be said that academic rows were vicious because the stakes were so small. That's no longer true in America, where a battle is underway on campuses over what can be said about the Middle East and US foreign policy.

Douglas Giles is a recent casualty. He used to teach a class on world religions at Roosevelt University, Chicago, founded in memory of FDR and his liberal-inclined wife, Eleanor. Last year, Giles was ordered by his head of department, art historian Susan Weininger, not to allow students to ask questions about Palestine and Israel; in fact, nothing was to be mentioned in class, textbooks and examinations that could possibly open Judaism to criticism.

Students, being what they are, did not go along with the ban. A young woman, originally from Pakistan, asked a question about Palestinian rights. Someone complained and Professor Giles was promptly fired.

Leaving aside his boss's doubtful qualifications to set limits on a class of comparative religion - her speciality is early 20th-century Midwestern artists such as Tunis Ponsen (nor have I) - the point to grasp is that Professor Giles did not make inflammatory statements himself: he merely refused to limit debate among the young minds in front of him.
...
Joel Beinin of Stanford University is regularly attacked by both. Beinin is a Jew who speaks both Hebrew and Arabic. He worked in Israel and on an assembly line in the US, where he helped Arab workers understand their rights. Now, he holds seminars at Stanford in which all views are expressed. For this reason, no doubt, his photograph recently appeared on the front of a booklet entitled 'Campus Support for Terrorism'.

It was published by David Horovitz, the founder of FrontPageMag.com who has both composed a bill of rights for universities, designed to take politics (for which read liberal influence and plurality) out of the curriculum and a list of the 100 most dangerous academics in America, which includes Noam Chomsky and many other distinguished thinkers and teachers.

The demented, bullying tone of the websites is another symptom of the descent of public discourse in America and, frankly, one can easily see the attractions of self-censorship on the question of Middle East and Israel. Read David Horovitz for longer than five minutes and you begin to hear Senator Joseph McCarthy accusing someone of un-American activities.

At Harvard, a few weeks after what was called Summers's 'mis-step', a much greater row ensued when John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard published a paper called 'The Israel Lobby'. Brave because the alleged distortion of US pro-Israel foreign policy is unmentionable in American public life.

Their paper was printed only in the UK, in the London Review of Books. In America, there then followed what has been described as the massive 'Shhhhhhhhh!' Apart from the mud-slinging from sites such as Campus Watch and FrontPageMag, it has had little mainstream circulation and there has been no real debate. ...

NBC: Disagreement over timing of arrests - American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner.

NBC: Disagreement over timing of arrests - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com: "Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests | By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit | NBC News | Updated: 7:13 p.m. ET Aug 12, 2006

British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says

LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

The source did say, however, that police believe one U.K.-based suspect was ready to conduct a "dry run." British authorities had wanted to let him go forward with part of the plan, but the Americans balked.

At the White House, a top aide to President Bush denied the account.
...
Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing. Analysts say that in recent years, American security officials have become edgier than the British in such cases because of missed opportunities leading up to 9/11. ...

NBC: Disagreement over timing of arrests - American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner.

NBC: Disagreement over timing of arrests - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com: "Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests | By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit

NBC News | Updated: 7:13 p.m. ET Aug 12, 2006

British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says

LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

The source did say, however, that police believe one U.K.-based suspect was ready to conduct a "dry run." British authorities had wanted to let him go forward with part of the plan, but the Americans balked.

At the White House, a top aide to President Bush denied the account.
...
Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing. Analysts say that in recent years, American security officials have become edgier than the British in such cases because of missed opportunities leading up to 9/11. ...

'The Constitution in Crisis.': nothing in the AP; nothing in any of the major dailies; nothing on ABC, CBS, or NBC. Not one word.

Crooks and Liars � If a report falls in a forest…: "If a report falls in a forest… | By: Steve on Sunday, August 6th, 2006 at 1:08 PM - PDT

It’s been about 48 hours since Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee issued a sweeping indictment of the Bush administration’s casual approach to law-breaking in a report called, 'The Constitution in Crisis.' How’s the media reaction been?

Using Lexis-Nexis and Google News, it appears that the only mainstream media outlet — literally, the only one — to even mention the release of the report was CNN, when Jack Cafferty devoted 200 words to the subject late last week.

To be fair, the timing of the release wasn’t ideal. A Friday afternoon in August was probably not the way to maximize exposure for the report.

Regardless, this is a well-documented, thoroughly-researched report from congressional Democrats about the Bush administration possibly violating over two dozen federal laws and regulations — some of them multiple times. And yet, nothing in the AP; nothing in any of the major dailies; nothing on ABC, CBS, or NBC. Not one word.

First, many of us frequently feel like congressional Democrats need to be aggressive and go on the offensive more, but let’s not forget, even when they do, much the media blows off what Dems have to say.

And second, if Dems accuse the administration of criminal activity, and it’s widely ignored, does it really make a sound?"