Further, it’s easier to keep a reporter from becoming a high-stakes international incident than a soldier. A newspaper can abandon their asset. The US Military is powerless not to abandon its personnel.

You can’t infer from the spokeswoman’s reticence that the military was opposed to the AP story. Sometimes official sources are willing for unofficial sources to talk. If that was not the case, the AP would have told us that the military requested an embargo, and they decided to disregard it. Anyway, the Afghan police were talking and the AP might have determined that the name of the province was common knowledge. That information also could have come from defense sources. Maybe the AP had already been scooped by the Pakistani press, or Le Monde.

I don’t see a tort. I think y’all just picking a fight with the NYT

Report comment to moderator

Again it seems that liberals enjoy it if soldiers are captured

That’s the kind of sloppy wording (and thinking) that I suspect you don’t tolerate elsewhere in your life.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Since the Afghan Police are talking about it and apparently involved, the disclosure of the “Mullakheil area” hardly seems to be much of a secret — or very much detail.

All of the information in the AP story was sourced to the named spokeswoman and to “two U.S. defense sources” (whose information must have confirmed the “whereabouts” of the disappearance).

The AP does not report that the military requested embargo.

Since the AP had the story, the NYTimes had no power to keep it a secret. The military should not get to have the whole say over the difference between safety and embarrassment. Let’s criticize the NYTimes for its real failings.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

The answer is very simple: because the NYT published it!! The AP simply made the story available, but the NYT made it widely available to the public.

Are you saying that the NYT has no responsibility whatsoever for anything they publish as long as they didn’t write it?

Report comment to moderator

Think logically.

Neither you nor I know all of the reasons why it is important NOT to release details. As you have stated, obviously the enemy/kidnappers know where the capture occurred, but there must be other information and details, the release of which further jeopardizes victim’s safety. The best course, if one really cares about the victim, is to follow the directions of those who really know what is going on and who are responsible for getting the soldier back alive, if at all possible. That’s the logical thing to do if one is at all concerned about the soldier’s safety.

The important point here is that the NY Times refuses to cooperate with the military and thus disregards the safety of the soldier. They just don’t give a damn. On the other hand, when one of their people is in a similar situation, they do everything they can to cooperate and work for the safe return of their employee.

This is by no means the first occurrence of the Times demonstrating their hypocrisy and disdain for the safety of American soldiers. At other times they have deliberately published information compromising our intelligence operations and endangering the lives of both Americans and foreign nationals.

The financial troubles of the Times is a well known fact, and many believe that it is partly due to their diminishing reader base. Are people abandoning the Times because of their increasingly anti-American posture? I sure hope so.

As I said before, the sooner this morally bankrupt newspaper goes out of business, the better.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator