"Special forces hunt bin Laden" - USA Today

[Steve Machol]

The USA Today is reporting that U.S. Special Forces have been in Afganistan for the past two weeks searching for bin Laden.

http://www.usatoday.com/hlead.htm

Is anyone else bothered by this as much as I am? I'm all in favor of a free press, and I accept that the newspaper has a right to publish this info. But along with this right comes an expectation of responsible reporting. This newspaper has purposely made information public that puts the lives of our people in jeopardy. I can't help but think what the parents of Special Forces personnel must be thinking right now.

Being a strong advocate of freedom of speech, I'm really torn over the this incident. However I firmly believe this kind of reporting is irresponsible and this newspaper has done a disservice to the cause of freedom. What do you think?

[Jim G]

Once it becomes "public," it is the responsibility of the free press to publish information. If anyone should be blamed, go to the "...senior U.S. and Pakistani officials (who) have confirmed privately..." the chase. I may be cynical but, I'd say this was well known by the Afghani and bin Laden and purposely released to quiet that group of Americans who are clammoring for turning Afghanistan into toast.

[Steve Machol]

I can't help but think that during WWII the press often had information on the specific locations and movements of Allied troops, yet they refrained from making this information public. Would freedom have been served if they published this informationc? I believe this would have resulted in one of two outcomes: (1) increased rstrictions on the freedom of the press, and/or (2) a change in the outcome of many batteles, and ultimately the war itself. Neither option would have served the cause of freedom.

I respectfully disagree with the view that "once it becomes 'public,' it is the responsibility of the free press to publish information." There is no such obligation to publish any and all facts that are discovered. Besides, this information wasn't 'public'. It appears to have been leaked to the media and did not become public until one media outlet decided to make it so.

As I said, I'm torn on this one. However I do think USA Today's actions were irresponsible journalism.

[LaurieC]

Yes, it's irresponsible journalism. The first ammendment rights stop at endangering others. I. E. you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, etc, etc., you can't tell people you're a doctor, policeman, cause you'd like to roll play.

I am sick and tired of the media's lower members of the food chain argueing "right to know". Say that to the parent of one of these people who may be in danger. And even someone with the highest levels of security clearance doesn't get to know everything under a classified banner, they must be accessed to particular information on a NEED to know basis.

However, most of us are aware of the existance of PSYOPS in one form or another. Sometimes something like this is deliberately dropped. Although if I was going to drop it it wouldn't be with USA Today!

[EyeManFla]

If I remember my military history well, and I do, I believe that releasing classified information during a TIME OF WAR was an act of Treason!

Well, we are at war, are we not....................:finger:

[Steve Machol]

Technically there's been no declaration of war. I wish there was and I don't understand why not. This was clearly an act of war against us.

[Bev Heishman]

Frankly I am sick of hearing alot of things that I feel should be private to protect our people. This includes military and civilians. I to believe in freedom of speech and expression however enough is enough.

We didn't have these problems so much prior to the late 60's and I think it is high time we return to less reporting. I am surprised we don't know when public figures use the bathroom. We need to protect not suggest. Privacy is necessary.

For me one of the most scariest things was when the first plane hit WTC I told my coworker that it was a terrorist attack and more would come. I even projected the next city after the second strike. She couldn't believe it when it happened.

Believe me, I had no prior knowledge.

[Blake]

I'm inclined to agree with Jim that the release of this information was on purpose, although I'm not exactly sure what the purpose was. Maybe to reassure the American people, maybe to let bin Laden know his time's running out.
On the other hand, some official might have just been trying to impress a pretty reporter with how "in the loop" he was.
I'm not sure we're ready to declare war just yet. First we need to know WHO to declare war on. There are surely more nations involved than just Afghanistan.


Blake

[Darris Chambless]

Okay everyone calm down.

Ooop. Did I say that? :) I'm sure some of you folks are familiar with what Bush said about smoking Osama out of his hiding places. I'm sure some of you are familiar with how this is done but some are not, but please understand that's what is going on now. What better way to do it than to leak out a little info to the mindless press drones so that they can plaster it all over the place for everyone, even the Afghani's and Binny (as I lovingly call him now :) to see.

I can all but guarantee that we know exactly where Binny is but we don't know who all of his contacts, financiers and supporters are as of yet but if he keeps getting information like this we will know who and where they are ;)

Binny's a dead man regardless of whether it be by our hand or his own country. He has brought certain death and destruction to them and other surrounding countries so the only people he can count on are those that support him and that makes it easier to find them.

Take care and calm down,

Darris C.

[hcjilson]

I'm with Darris on this. You didn't read anything in the papers or hear any thing on radio or TV that your government didn't want Bin Laudin to know.Don't believe everything you hear in a time of war.There are few better at disinformation than we are.
bst to all this weekend. hj

[Steve Machol]

If this information has been deliberately leaked, then I agree that no harm comes from publishing it.

However, I still maintain that publishing obviously secret information about the location and activities or our forces would be irresponsible journalism.

[Joann Raytar]

I also agree with Darris on this one. Last night CBS news announced that Special Forces weren't in Afganistan. I am sure the rumour was leaked to get Bin Laden on the run.

[LaurieC]

Originally posted by Darris Chambless
and Binny (as I lovingly call him now :) to see.

Darris C.

BINNY!!!! I LOVE IT!!!!! May I use it too?:bbg:

[Darris Chambless]

Hi Gang,

First to Steve. All visible reporting is irresponsible journalism. That's why you leak this information out because they know the press will report it especially if they follow it with "Shhhh. Make sure you don't tell anyone about this." :) Responsibility ceased to be part of journalism ages ago. Heck you can report your "opinion" these days even if it isn't based in any fact.

To Laurie. You may use "Binny" as much as you like and I encourage it. If you would like you may also use the long version which is "Binny the Afghani, Nomadic, Loser boy." Feel free to use either as much and as often as you'd like. :)

Bye kids, and remember; always trust me because I'm always right :)

Darris "The Omniscient" C.