It isn't always that simple. The government sometimes discloses such information intentionally with an agreement that the briefer's name is not disclosed.
This is half the newspaper nowadays. Every journalist just repeats what some official with an impressive job title says and nobody gets to question why the story is being pushed by this person because they are never identified. It's naive to call for prosecution, this story was almost surely leaked and approved by the US State Department before it was written.
Journalists should really dig their heels in and start resisting this, but that will never happen. It's just bad journalism and they keep letting themselves get manipulated.
I don't even care about the classified information aspect of this, the classification system in the US is a complete farce and will be reformed soon, clearly nobody respects it all anymore at any level of the intel community.
Journalists without a long history of connections and experience, typically facilitated by the name/history of the "paper" they're working for, don't get to dig their heels in because they would lose access. Access is paramount, as is on record/off record confidentiality, and they are dependent on it, else they be blacklisted by their subjects of interest. All interviews and information sharing is voluntary, they can't force someone to answer a question, and they can't force someone to be interviewed, and they definitely can't force someone to tell the truth.
It is not their fault that they parrot whatever talking points politicians and their staff members. It's only on those rare occasions where sources are cultivated through long periods of time and building trust through publishing meticulously what information has been shared with them via interviews and documents, most of them being talking points of course, that they can get to the meat of the subjects. Lifting the veil of the real news stories requires years and years of trudging through just simply formatting interview transcripts into something readable and of interest.
I don't blame them one bit. It's a tough job and you're at the mercy of everyone you attempt to gather information from. It doesn't help that you're viewed as de-facto suspicious due to journalistic freedoms.
I have always wondered if all the power outages and other infrastructure issues after Morsi got into power in Egypt was because of either the US or Irsael. This was a major reason why he lost a lot of public support.
Conflating country wide attacks with precision targets is very extreme to say the least.
So the obvious answer to gp is that the socialist government in power ruined the infrastructure and they are having to account for it by saying “the evil Yankee empire is the cause of these blackouts”.
Always go for the simple answer before looking for boogeymen.
Removing left wing governments in South and Central America by any means necessary has been US policy for almost a century now. A cyber attack on infrastructure is very much on brand.
whb07 asked for sources. Your reply is rather lacking. Mockingly declaring that you don't actually need sources, because oil, is not the same as actually supplying a source...
Because the scale of the operation and public awareness have both increased after a president got elected on a platform of curbing immigration and increasing deportations. More and more people have become aware. It was bad when the Obama administration did it, and it is worse now.
Are the deaths of child detainees linear?
Are the days children spend in detention linear?
Are the separations from parents linear?
Is the explicit targeting of long-time residents with no criminal history linear?
Why is it important for you to dismiss changes that the current administration explicitly campaigned to enact, and that is clearly manifest? Does it make you feel better about not trying to change anything for the better?
I'm not dismissing anything, I think you made a lot of assumptions based on me dropping a link. The post I responded to indicated that this issue has gotten much worse with the current administration, which isn't true. I think if we're going to fix the issue, we need to be honest about the issue.
Um, because under Obama ICE wasn’t putting kids in cages? Because it wasn’t withholding bedding? It wasn’t separating families and then “accidentally” losing track of the children? Children weren’t dying while in jail away from their parents? They weren’t denied food and clean water?
I didn't say not providing bedding, I said removing existing bedding. Because ICE believes in collective punishment of children, and considers removing bedding to be acceptable. [1,2]
Here's a question for pro-ICE people: if another country started rounding up and separating American families, then lost track of the children, would you support those actions as well? Or does it only apply to people with the wrong skin color?
People who illegally cross the border are not legal asylum seekers. Those who do so with children they are trafficking are even more of an issue, and you know this is happening.
No, the answer is I don’t approve of silly hyperbole that only exists because you don’t like the current head of state. Where were you when the last administration was doing the exact same thing? You didn’t care then, because you liked that administration. If you were intellectually honest you’d have protested then rather than waiting for your handlers to tell you it was time to make noise.
DarmokJalad1701 pointed out specific new behavior that this administration enacted as official policy, and you then justified it.
We agree that you don't approve of ~silly hyperbole~ other people having convictions, but you made it very clear that you _do_ approve of family separations, but don't think that anybody should be criticized for it if other bad things ever happened before.
As for "[my] handlers telling [me] it was time to make noise," who is really bringing the silly hyperbole? What is even the conspiracy here? Are we all in the back pocket of big-Gitlab or something?
I didn't "justify" anything. I said that your hyperbole is hyperbole, and you didn't care when the politicians you liked were in charge, which suggests you really don't care at all and are simply part of the outrage machine that spins up when someone tells them to.
If you had convictions, you'd have had them when the last administration was doing this. You didn't then, you don't now.
BTW, the "specific examples" you talk about are not accurate. You're quoting talking points. People who cross the border illegally and then pretend to be "asylum seekers" when they get caught are not "legal asylum seekers", they have committed a crime. Nobody is arresting people who legally present to a border crossing and request asylum, because they haven't committed a crime to be arrested for.
b. I know you didn't care about government-sponsored child abuse before Trump, because your protest (to the thing that had yet to happen) wasn't in my news feed
c. btw, here are my justifications for why they had to do the child abuse
The Trump administration didn't change anything. News agencies have used footage showing the Obama administration doing what you call "child abuse" and pretending it was the Trump administration.
No one has justified child abuse. When someone commits a crime and has a child with them, the two are necessarily not going to be hanging out in a cell together -- especially when it's possible the crime is trafficking that child. That's just not how it works.
- a DHS official in March 2017 floated a policy of family separation and said that "we are trying to find ways to deter the use of children in illegal immigration." [1]
- Jeff Sessions directed federal prosecutors "to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy for all offenses" related to the misdemeanor of improper entry into the United States [2]
- John Kelly justified the new policy by saying "The children will be taken care of—put into foster care or whatever." [3]
and subsequently more than 2000 children, some as young as 12 months old, were separated from their parents,
That was all a liberal smokescreen. They weren't changing anything! Actually, this was always Obama's policy, DHS and DOJ just waited to enact it until after he left office and the guy who campaigned against his record just happened to be around when those separations actually occurred. And all of those political appointees saying that they were changing things were just deep state plants.
> The Trump administration didn't change anything
They told us they would do new things, many times, and then they did the things. It is really bizarre that fervent Trump supporters like yourself are so shy about taking credit for MAGA. He's delivering on his core promises! Why are you so insistent on giving credit to the usurper that came before?
I have many head but "Brisket & Ribeye" go to slaughter in November. I was just outside petting them and making sure they have great quality grass to eat.
I was just looking at the same thing. Also another bit of info...if you live east of 35, you only need 10 acres for an agriculture exception. West, you need 15 acres. Those pesky rocks.
"undisciplined sharing of the photo"...How do you know this was the case? Let's think about this for a second...This wasn't a picture of a picture. This was the image in the brief. This image would have needed to be shared onto a different network that has access to Twitter or a phone with twitter access. That image would have needed to be removed from the brief, shared onto that system and then tweeted. You think this wasn't planned? The President isn't going to go through so many steps just to tweet a photo himself. This was done with staff who knows the classification.
Probably not a "plan". As President one can usually legally "release" classified info on a whim, and if T is allowed to do something on a whim, he typically will.
