10 Companies that won't make 2010

[dude1394]

Interesting list of 10 well-known companies that these boys say won't make 2010. It has some political connotations because NYTimes (the poster child for brand destruction), AIG and FannieMay, FreedieMac are on the list.
http://www.247wallst.com/2008/12/companies-that.html

Companies That Won’t Make It Through 2009 (HMC)(SIRI)(AIG)(FRE)(FNM)(RAD)(NYT)(NT)(PIR)(CHTR )(HOV)

AngrybearA lot of fairly well-known public companies either disappeared or went bankrupt this year. Circuit City is on the list. Based on the most recent news GM may get added soon.

24/7 Wall St. looked at some of the largest and most well-known companies, reviewed their SEC filings if they are public, analyst reports, and media observations about their businesses and picked ten that probably won’t be around at the end of next year. That does not mean that their brands will disappear, but these companies will have been dissolved as the world knows them now or working though the court system in the hopes of getting Chapter 11 protection and a chance at survival.

1) Chrysler already says it will be out of business by early next year. But, what does that mean. It is unlikely that its largest shareholder, hedge fund Cerberus, is going to throw good money after bad in an economy where US car sales are dropping 30% compared with 2007 figures. But, the Chrysler brand could be around. So could the brand of its Jeep division. Foreign car companies like VW and Honda (HMC) would love to get well-known operations without the baggage of debt, UAW contracts, and dealer networks. Chrysler still has some popular models including it 300 series cars and it created the minivan. Jeep is regarded as the grandfather of four-wheel drive. Watch Chrysler Motors LLC go away and some of its products move into other hands.

2) Sirius XM (SIRI) has traded under $.10 down from a 52-week high of $3.89. Reuters has reported that "Sirius XM faces some $1.1 billion in debt in 2009. Of that, about $300 million comes due in February." In the current credit environment, that probably won’t happen. There is a theory that falling car sales will undermine the sale of Sirius subscriptions. The company says that it does no better than break-even in the first year it gets a new customer though GM. But, a shrinking subscriber based is not good news for the satellite radio company’s future. Sirius will be out of business, perhaps before mid-year. Who picks up the pieces? The logical choices are a healthy car company like Toyota or a satellite firm like DirecTV.

3) AIG (AIG) may be the biggest mess of all the financial firms that the federal government has bailed out. Uncle Sam has given AIG $153 billion in loans. The theory is that the money gets paid back by the huge insurance company selling assets. Investors don’t seem very sanguine about that. AIG shares trade at $1.60, down from a 52-week high of $60.04. Congress seems less and less enamored of having a lot of money sitting in troubled companies. Watch for the new administration to get frustrated quickly and appoint its own people to auction off AIG divisions. Better to get something back than keep writing AIG checks.

4) Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) is two for one. They are both penny stocks, reflecting the fact that the Treasury has essentially taken them over, putting them into a conservatorship and pledging up to $200 billion to back their assets. With mortgage defaults rising, and home prices falling, that is not the end of the amount of money that the government will have to sink into the firms. Within a few months, the value of the common shares in the firms will be gone. The new administration may even decide that it does not need both companies. They can be replaced with some of their role going to the FDIC and the rest to one consolidated entity controlled by The Treasury Department which is already funding them.

5) Rite Aid (RAD) trades at $.35 down from at 52-week high of $4.16. The pharmacy company has over 5,000 stores and Wall St. does not expect it to be profitable in the foreseeable future. The chain is a roll-up of the original company and Brooks and Eckerd stores which it acquired. With a debt load of over $6 billion, the firm is likely to falter. Competitors CVS Caremark (CVS) and Walgreen (WAG) would be happy to pick up the pieces. Rite Aid recently announced poor quarterly numbers and cut forecasts.

6) The New York Times (NYT) has to repay $400 million in debt in the first half of 2009. It does not have the money. It plans to mortgage its headquarters, but it is uncertain what that will bring in an uncertain real estate market. The firm’s Boston Globe and regional newspaper operations lose money, so they will be hard to sell. NYT is controlled by the Sulzberger family which has super-majority voting shares. That won’t matter much when the company runs out of money. Another big media operation, perhaps News Corp (NWS) which owns The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, will come in and auction off what it can and keep the flagship New York Times newspaper and NYTimes.com website.

7) Nortel (NT), the huge telecom equipment company, has already been mentioned as a firm which could file for bankruptcy. That may be a game to get creditors to cut down their demands. It could be that a huge contraction in the industry which is also undermining the fortunes of competitor Alcatel-Lucent (ALU) is pulling Nortel under. Nortel keeps losing money and has cut about as many people as it can and still stay in business. With the need for its products and services falling as the recession grows. Nortel has a pension obligation which may approach $3 billion. Selling divisions in a poor credit market will be hard. A bankruptcy filing would let a court run an auction.

8) Pier 1 (PIR) trades down at $.32 from a 52-week high of $8.25. This holiday season will determine its fate. UBS recently made the comment that "We are increasingly concerned that a weakening macro environment will continue to weigh significantly upon sales at Pier 1 Imports and further undermine turnaround efforts at the chain.” The retailer recently said that its same-store sales could fall as much as 18% during the current quarter. Long-term debt is $184 million. More losses mean debt service becomes a huge issue. No other retailer is likely to want the stores, so this is probably liquidation. The retailer's latest earnings showed a widening loss and the company said it could be delisted.

9) Charter Communications (CHTR) has over $20 billion in debt. The cable business usually drives reasonable cash flow, but Charter has to upgrade its system to better compete with telecom companies. It does not have that money. Debt service is overwhelming operating income. Billionaire Paul Allen controls that company. The stock is down to $.15. Eighteen month ago, it was close to $5. Allen will get out while he can and sell to one of the other large cable companies. Charter recently said it is "exploring financial alternatives."

10) Hovnanian (HOV) shares are down by 70% over the last year. Recently, the shares have been as low as $1.70, putting the company’s market cap at $171 million. The housing downturn may actually get worse as unemployment and foreclosures rise. The costs of credit default swaps on the homebuilder are way. JMP Securities recently commented that HOV is a ``bankruptcy risk” due to debt and exposure in the hardest hit real estate markets. A liquidation with Hovnanian would probably be an auction of land and unsold homes.

[Mavdog]

"political connotations"??

there are some common threads, but none of it is political.

ny times? take a look at every newspaper company in america, none are healthy and many (including our own belo) are losing money hand and foot. why? ad sales are declining, as is circulation. nothing political at all.

pier 1? they lost their meaning to the comsumer, they attempted to trade up in price points (failed) and then the consumer stopped buying home furnishings in general. a retailer needs to have meaning to the consumer and these guys don't. pretty much the same with chrysler, what do they have that is unique among car cos? nothing but the ugliest cars imo.

charter, hovnanian, rite aid, aig, nortel....all have too much debt. leverage is a bad, very bad, thing to be doing today. look at ggp as another example.

freddie and fannie? actually they will be doing pretty well as there is a very high volume of mortgages being written now, and if the rates go down another 50-75 basis points as predicted they will write even more. more mortgages=more fees for these two.

just don't see anything "political" in these cos. demise.

[92bDad]

That's a bit of a bummer with regards to Chrysler/Dodge.

They have some of the coolest looking cars on the market...not to mention, at least from my side, I have had some truly good quality with Dodge.

The worst brand that I have owned has been FORD and It wouldn't bother me one bit to see Ford go under!!!

At the end of the day, it's how these companies made decisions with their money...if they make bad choices and lose, then no matter how great the product may be, they will go under. A company can't exist if it is NOT making a profit.

[jefelump]

I'm not surprised about Charter. I have used their service off and on over the years, including right now (internet service only, not tv). They are completely incompetent when it comes to billing. Every time I sign up with them (against my better judgment), I end up on the phone talking to their customer service about why my bill is wrong. If you piss off enough customers with incorrect (too high) billing, they will leave.

[dude1394]

Well..it didn't quite seem to fit in the lounge. As far as NYtimes...sure newspapers are hurting..but this is THE premier newspaper in the world which has demolished it's brand..imho.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well..it didn't quite seem to fit in the lounge. As far as NYtimes...sure newspapers are hurting..but this is THE premier newspaper in the world which has demolished it's brand..imho.

Isn't the NY Times considered a Liberal rag? I see it more along the lines of the National Enquirer so it's no surprise that they find themselves in financial troubles above and beyond other reputable news organizations.

[Mavdog]

ALL newspapers, regardless of if they are liberal or conservative, are feeling pain. it has nothing to do with ideology.

[jefelump]

The New York Times is the paper that leaked national security secrets, such as the CIA prisons throughout Europe. Irregardless of whether or not you agree with the policy, the NYT did it to embarrass the Bush administration. They are definitely liberal.

Yes, just about all newspapers are hurting, because we can get news faster online, and it's free. That has nothing to do with liberal or conservative leanings. But when a paper knowingly reports classified information under the guise of "freedom of press", they have to live with the fall out. I have heard many stories of businesses discontinuing their subscription to the NYT, because they pissed off their readers publishing classified information that was illegally leaked to them.

When I buy a newspaper at the airport for reading while I'm on a plane, it is NEVER the NYT.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The New York Times is the paper that leaked national security secrets, such as the CIA prisons throughout Europe. Irregardless of whether or not you agree with the policy, the NYT did it to embarrass the Bush administration. They are definitely liberal.

Yes, just about all newspapers are hurting, because we can get news faster online, and it's free. That has nothing to do with liberal or conservative leanings. But when a paper knowingly reports classified information under the guise of "freedom of press", they have to live with the fall out. I have heard many stories of businesses discontinuing their subscription to the NYT, because they pissed off their readers publishing classified information that was illegally leaked to them.

When I buy a newspaper at the airport for reading while I'm on a plane, it is NEVER the NYT.

I second that...

Imagine, consumers effecting how companies and governments do business by how we use our own pocket books. There are more way to vote than only on election day!!!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The New York Times is the paper that leaked national security secrets, such as the CIA prisons throughout Europe. Irregardless of whether or not you agree with the policy, the NYT did it to embarrass the Bush administration. They are definitely liberal.

Yes, just about all newspapers are hurting, because we can get news faster online, and it's free. That has nothing to do with liberal or conservative leanings. But when a paper knowingly reports classified information under the guise of "freedom of press", they have to live with the fall out. I have heard many stories of businesses discontinuing their subscription to the NYT, because they pissed off their readers publishing classified information that was illegally leaked to them.

When I buy a newspaper at the airport for reading while I'm on a plane, it is NEVER the NYT.

if it is illegal, it shouldn't be a "secret" not matter what.

that is the role of a journalist btw.

as for "classified information", if it was revealed openly to a journalist it isn't very classified is it?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

if it is illegal, it shouldn't be a "secret" not matter what.

that is the role of a journalist btw.

as for "classified information", if it was revealed openly to a journalist it isn't very classified is it?

If classified information is leaked to a journalist, it's a crime. The information is still classified.

And call the "secret" CIA prisons illegal if you want. I don't really care. That isn't the point. The point is the information was classified, and illegally leaked. And then the NYT made classified information known to all the world, because "that is the role of a journalist".

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

That's a bit of a bummer with regards to Chrysler/Dodge.

They have some of the coolest looking cars on the market...not to mention, at least from my side, I have had some truly good quality with Dodge.

The worst brand that I have owned has been FORD and It wouldn't bother me one bit to see Ford go under!!!

At the end of the day, it's how these companies made decisions with their money...if they make bad choices and lose, then no matter how great the product may be, they will go under. A company can't exist if it is NOT making a profit.

That is the exact opposite of my history. Worst car ever Plymouth Reliant K. Second worse, Dodge pickup.

Best vehicles I have ever owned -- FORD pickups, van, Expedition, Explorer, and Mustangs.

Good, but have had quirks like alternators going out at 80K, Surburban, Cavalier, GMC Express Van.

My best guess is that I will never own another Chrysler product. I'll stick with Ford, Toyota and Nissan.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

If classified information is leaked to a journalist, it's a crime. The information is still classified.

And call the "secret" CIA prisons illegal if you want. I don't really care. That isn't the point. The point is the information was classified, and illegally leaked. And then the NYT made classified information known to all the world, because "that is the role of a journalist".

so you "don't really care". if you don't care that laws are violated, you can look the other way. people do it everyday when they see criminals act. it doesn't make your indifference the right thing to do.

me, I want to know if the government is breaking the law, and if they are breaking the law I want it to stop. any newspaper exposing the lawbreaking is doing us all a good thing.

if someone "leaks" information that the government is breaking the law, they should be commended. their revealing such isn't leaking information, it's doing the right thing.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so you "don't really care". if you don't care that laws are violated, you can look the other way. people do it everyday when they see criminals act. it doesn't make your indifference the right thing to do.

me, I want to know if the government is breaking the law, and if they are breaking the law I want it to stop. any newspaper exposing the lawbreaking is doing us all a good thing.

if someone "leaks" information that the government is breaking the law, they should be commended. their revealing such isn't leaking information, it's doing the right thing.

I think I agree with Mavdog here. If the government is breaking the law, then exposing it is a good thing.

Of course, while exposing it -- if it gets a few CIA agents and snoops killed and it puts the US in a horrid position, then I think all parties involved should be held liable for the deaths of the agents, etc. They should be criminally charged with manslaughter due to the fact that their actions are the indirect cause of the deaths. Then the papers, journalists, and people who leaked it should be open to a civil lawsuit for the wrongful death of these people. It would keep journalists a little more "honest" about finding out the truth before throwing out a "good story" containing classified information. Usually there is a reason it is classified. Too much of the time, papers claim "freedom of speech" when they are really just processing an agenda to sell papers.

That is the problem with classified information being leaked. When it is public information, then it could be deadly to certain people who work to keep us safe and sound.

I don't think anyone likes it, but this is how the world works right now.

[dalmations202]

The Death of Deep Throat and the Crisis of Journalism
December 22, 2008 | 1659 GMT

By George Friedman

Mark Felt died last week at the age of 95. For those who don’t recognize that name, Felt was the “Deep Throat” of Watergate fame. It was Felt who provided Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post with a flow of leaks about what had happened, how it happened and where to look for further corroboration on the break-in, the cover-up, and the financing of wrongdoing in the Nixon administration. Woodward and Bernstein’s exposé of Watergate has been seen as a high point of journalism, and their unwillingness to reveal Felt’s identity until he revealed it himself three years ago has been seen as symbolic of the moral rectitude demanded of journalists.

In reality, the revelation of who Felt was raised serious questions about the accomplishments of Woodward and Bernstein, the actual price we all pay for journalistic ethics, and how for many years we did not know a critical dimension of the Watergate crisis. At a time when newspapers are in financial crisis and journalism is facing serious existential issues, Watergate always has been held up as a symbol of what journalism means for a democracy, revealing truths that others were unwilling to uncover and grapple with. There is truth to this vision of journalism, but there is also a deep ambiguity, all built around Felt’s role. This is therefore not an excursion into ancient history, but a consideration of two things. The first is how journalists become tools of various factions in political disputes. The second is the relationship between security and intelligence organizations and governments in a Democratic society.

Watergate was about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington. The break-in was carried out by a group of former CIA operatives controlled by individuals leading back to the White House. It was never proven that then-U.S. President Richard Nixon knew of the break-in, but we find it difficult to imagine that he didn’t. In any case, the issue went beyond the break-in. It went to the cover-up of the break-in and, more importantly, to the uses of money that financed the break-in and other activities. Numerous aides, including the attorney general of the United States, went to prison. Woodward and Bernstein, and their newspaper, The Washington Post, aggressively pursued the story from the summer of 1972 until Nixon’s resignation. The episode has been seen as one of journalism’s finest moments. It may have been, but that cannot be concluded until we consider Deep Throat more carefully.

Deep Throat Reconsidered

Mark Felt was deputy associate director of the FBI (No. 3 in bureau hierarchy) in May 1972, when longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover died. Upon Hoover’s death, Felt was second to Clyde Tolson, the longtime deputy and close friend to Hoover who by then was in failing health himself. Days after Hoover’s death, Tolson left the bureau.

Felt expected to be named Hoover’s successor, but Nixon passed him over, appointing L. Patrick Gray instead. In selecting Gray, Nixon was reaching outside the FBI for the first time in the 48 years since Hoover had taken over. But while Gray was formally acting director, the Senate never confirmed him, and as an outsider, he never really took effective control of the FBI. In a practical sense, Felt was in operational control of the FBI from the break-in at the Watergate in August 1972 until June 1973.

Nixon’s motives in appointing Gray certainly involved increasing his control of the FBI, but several presidents before him had wanted this, too, including John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Both of these presidents wanted Hoover gone for the same reason they were afraid to remove him: He knew too much. In Washington, as in every capital, knowing the weaknesses of powerful people is itself power — and Hoover made it a point to know the weaknesses of everyone. He also made it a point to be useful to the powerful, increasing his overall value and his knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the powerful.

Hoover’s death achieved what Kennedy and Johnson couldn’t do. Nixon had no intention of allowing the FBI to continue as a self-enclosed organization outside the control of the presidency and everyone else. Thus, the idea that Mark Felt, a man completely loyal to Hoover and his legacy, would be selected to succeed Hoover is in retrospect the most unlikely outcome imaginable.

Felt saw Gray’s selection as an unwelcome politicization of the FBI (by placing it under direct presidential control), an assault on the traditions created by Hoover and an insult to his memory, and a massive personal disappointment. Felt was thus a disgruntled employee at the highest level. He was also a senior official in an organization that traditionally had protected its interests in predictable ways. (By then formally the No. 2 figure in FBI, Felt effectively controlled the agency given Gray’s inexperience and outsider status.) The FBI identified its enemies, then used its vast knowledge of its enemies’ wrongdoings in press leaks designed to be as devastating as possible. While carefully hiding the source of the information, it then watched the victim — who was usually guilty as sin — crumble. Felt, who himself was later convicted and pardoned for illegal wiretaps and break-ins, was not nearly as appalled by Nixon’s crimes as by Nixon’s decision to pass him over as head of the FBI. He merely set Hoover’s playbook in motion.

Woodward and Bernstein were on the city desk of The Washington Post at the time. They were young (29 and 28), inexperienced and hungry. We do not know why Felt decided to use them as his conduit for leaks, but we would guess he sought these three characteristics — as well as a newspaper with sufficient gravitas to gain notice. Felt obviously knew the two had been assigned to a local burglary, and he decided to leak what he knew to lead them where he wanted them to go. He used his knowledge to guide, and therefore control, their investigation.

Systematic Spying on the President

And now we come to the major point. For Felt to have been able to guide and control the young reporters’ investigation, he needed to know a great deal of what the White House had done, going back quite far. He could not possibly have known all this simply through his personal investigations. His knowledge covered too many people, too many operations, and too much money in too many places simply to have been the product of one of his side hobbies. The only way Felt could have the knowledge he did was if the FBI had been systematically spying on the White House, on the Committee to Re-elect the President and on all of the other elements involved in Watergate. Felt was not simply feeding information to Woodward and Bernstein; he was using the intelligence product emanating from a section of the FBI to shape The Washington Post’s coverage.

Instead of passing what he knew to professional prosecutors at the Justice Department — or if he did not trust them, to the House Judiciary Committee charged with investigating presidential wrongdoing — Felt chose to leak the information to The Washington Post. He bet, or knew, that Post editor Ben Bradlee would allow Woodward and Bernstein to play the role Felt had selected for them. Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee all knew who Deep Throat was. They worked with the operational head of the FBI to destroy Nixon, and then protected Felt and the FBI until Felt came forward.

In our view, Nixon was as guilty as sin of more things than were ever proven. Nevertheless, there is another side to this story. The FBI was carrying out espionage against the president of the United States, not for any later prosecution of Nixon for a specific crime (the spying had to have been going on well before the break-in), but to increase the FBI’s control over Nixon. Woodward, Bernstein and above all, Bradlee, knew what was going on. Woodward and Bernstein might have been young and naive, but Bradlee was an old Washington hand who knew exactly who Felt was, knew the FBI playbook and understood that Felt could not have played the role he did without a focused FBI operation against the president. Bradlee knew perfectly well that Woodward and Bernstein were not breaking the story, but were having it spoon-fed to them by a master. He knew that the president of the United States, guilty or not, was being destroyed by Hoover’s jilted heir.

This was enormously important news. The Washington Post decided not to report it. The story of Deep Throat was well-known, but what lurked behind the identity of Deep Throat was not. This was not a lone whistle-blower being protected by a courageous news organization; rather, it was a news organization being used by the FBI against the president, and a news organization that knew perfectly well that it was being used against the president. Protecting Deep Throat concealed not only an individual, but also the story of the FBI’s role in destroying Nixon.

Again, Nixon’s guilt is not in question. And the argument can be made that given John Mitchell’s control of the Justice Department, Felt thought that going through channels was impossible (although the FBI was more intimidating to Mitchell than the other way around). But the fact remains that Deep Throat was the heir apparent to Hoover — a man not averse to breaking the law in covert operations — and Deep Throat clearly was drawing on broader resources in the FBI, resources that had to have been in place before Hoover’s death and continued operating afterward.
Burying a Story to Get a Story

Until Felt came forward in 2005, not only were these things unknown, but The Washington Post was protecting them. Admittedly, the Post was in a difficult position. Without Felt’s help, it would not have gotten the story. But the terms Felt set required that a huge piece of the story not be told. The Washington Post created a morality play about an out-of-control government brought to heel by two young, enterprising journalists and a courageous newspaper. That simply wasn’t what happened. Instead, it was about the FBI using The Washington Post to leak information to destroy the president, and The Washington Post willingly serving as the conduit for that information while withholding an essential dimension of the story by concealing Deep Throat’s identity.

Journalists have celebrated the Post’s role in bringing down the president for a generation. Even after the revelation of Deep Throat’s identity in 2005, there was no serious soul-searching on the omission from the historical record. Without understanding the role played by Felt and the FBI in bringing Nixon down, Watergate cannot be understood completely. Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee were willingly used by Felt to destroy Nixon. The three acknowledged a secret source, but they did not reveal that the secret source was in operational control of the FBI. They did not reveal that the FBI was passing on the fruits of surveillance of the White House. They did not reveal the genesis of the fall of Nixon. They accepted the accolades while withholding an extraordinarily important fact, elevating their own role in the episode while distorting the actual dynamic of Nixon’s fall.

Absent any widespread reconsideration of the Post’s actions during Watergate in the three years since Felt’s identity became known, the press in Washington continues to serve as a conduit for leaks of secret information. They publish this information while protecting the leakers, and therefore the leakers’ motives. Rather than being a venue for the neutral reporting of events, journalism thus becomes the arena in which political power plays are executed. What appears to be enterprising journalism is in fact a symbiotic relationship between journalists and government factions. It may be the best path journalists have for acquiring secrets, but it creates a very partial record of events — especially since the origin of a leak frequently is much more important to the public than the leak itself.

The Felt experience is part of an ongoing story in which journalists’ guarantees of anonymity to sources allow leakers to control the news process. Protecting Deep Throat’s identity kept us from understanding the full dynamic of Watergate. We did not know that Deep Throat was running the FBI, we did not know the FBI was conducting surveillance on the White House, and we did not know that the Watergate scandal emerged not by dint of enterprising journalism, but because Felt had selected Woodward and Bernstein as his vehicle to bring Nixon down. And we did not know that the editor of The Washington Post allowed this to happen. We had a profoundly defective picture of the situation, as defective as the idea that Bob Woodward looks like Robert Redford.

Finding the truth of events containing secrets is always difficult, as we know all too well. There is no simple solution to this quandary. In intelligence, we dream of the well-placed source who will reveal important things to us. But we also are aware that the information provided is only the beginning of the story. The rest of the story involves the source’s motivation, and frequently that motivation is more important than the information provided. Understanding a source’s motivation is essential both to good intelligence and to journalism. In this case, keeping secret the source kept an entire — and critical — dimension of Watergate hidden for a generation. Whatever crimes Nixon committed, the FBI had spied on the president and leaked what it knew to The Washington Post in order to destroy him. The editor of The Washington Post knew that, as did Woodward and Bernstein. We do not begrudge them their prizes and accolades, but it would have been useful to know who handed them the story. In many ways, that story is as interesting as the one about all the president’s men.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Of course, while exposing it -- if it gets a few CIA agents and snoops killed and it puts the US in a horrid position, then I think all parties involved should be held liable for the deaths of the agents, etc. They should be criminally charged with manslaughter due to the fact that their actions are the indirect cause of the deaths. Then the papers, journalists, and people who leaked it should be open to a civil lawsuit for the wrongful death of these people. It would keep journalists a little more "honest" about finding out the truth before throwing out a "good story" containing classified information. Usually there is a reason it is classified. Too much of the time, papers claim "freedom of speech" when they are really just processing an agenda to sell papers.

That is the problem with classified information being leaked. When it is public information, then it could be deadly to certain people who work to keep us safe and sound.

I don't think anyone likes it, but this is how the world works right now.

I completely agree with the above. Freedom of Press should not give reporters immunity from prosecution.

And while I agree that blowing the whistle on crime committed in government is a good thing, I have to ask these simple questions regarding the CIA prisons (since that is the example I gave above).... What crime was being committed? Where are the indictments? Who has been tried for these crimes?

And to take it a step further, let's look at the Valerie Plame fiasco... The only indictment we saw was Libby, and it was for perjury. The charged crime was something that happened during the investigation. The "crime" being investigated was deemed to not be a crime at all, thus there were no indictments handed down for divulging the name of a CIA operative.

So we have two incidents I have named where no crime was charged, no people were indicted, and nobody was tried. So what's the crime the NYT was telling us about? Or was it just a good story someone wanted to "break" first?

[wmbwinn]

Great article, Dalmations. I had no idea about that, having never studied it. Frightening...

I didn't care when the false Gulf War attack plans were "leaked" to throw Saddam off. But... this is bad stuff...

[dalmations202]

My point by the article is "be careful with what you think you know" ...........

and listening to the media is not always the smart thing to do. Much more goes on than is posted, and most that is posted in any newspaper has an agenda.

[Rhylan]

If Charter goes belly up I'm throwing a party.

[jthig32]

I certainly wouldn't shed any tears if I no longer had to work on code to support Nortel's stupid phone switch.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

The Death of Deep Throat and the Crisis of Journalism
December 22, 2008 | 1659 GMT

first, anyone who believes that people act solely out of a feeling of altruism. of idealism, in journalism are fooling themselves. likewise most whistleblowers also are acting for selfish reasons. that's the way the world works, and that's the way it will work in the future.

second, it wasn't felt who brought down the nixon administration, it was dean. dean spilled out all the details, most importantly the existence of the tapes.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I completely agree with the above. Freedom of Press should not give reporters immunity from prosecution.

And while I agree that blowing the whistle on crime committed in government is a good thing, I have to ask these simple questions regarding the CIA prisons (since that is the example I gave above).... What crime was being committed? Where are the indictments? Who has been tried for these crimes?

cia agents have been indicted in both germany and italy, and the council of europe report detailed the fact that the cia prisons violated not only europen and american laws but also the geneva convention.

And to take it a step further, let's look at the Valerie Plame fiasco... The only indictment we saw was Libby, and it was for perjury. The charged crime was something that happened during the investigation. The "crime" being investigated was deemed to not be a crime at all, thus there were no indictments handed down for divulging the name of a CIA operative.

libby took the sword for cheney and rove, by obstructing the investigation (which he wa found guilty) fitzgerald couldn't obtain any proof of their actions.

what is clear from the investigation is that these men threw valerie plame under the bus due to her husband's work to debunk their assertion about hussein and uranium.

how anyone could condone their actions of "outing" a cia agent, putting the agent's contacts in foreign countrys at risk, is beyond me...

So we have two incidents I have named where no crime was charged, no people were indicted, and nobody was tried. So what's the crime the NYT was telling us about? Or was it just a good story someone wanted to "break" first?

you are wrong in there being no indictments, and wrong in there being no crimes committed, clearly there was a positive contribution by the nyt and the other newspapers (such as the wall street journal) who exposed these illegal activities.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

cia agents have been indicted in both germany and italy, and the council of europe report detailed the fact that the cia prisons violated not only europen and american laws but also the geneva convention.

Yea, and Germany also indicted Donald Rumsfeld. Am I to believe he's a criminal too? Foreign indictments don't impress me. If US law was broken, as alleged in your post, then where are the indictments handed down by US courts?

And it's my understanding the Geneva Conventions pertain to Prisoners of War (POWs). These men who were captured were not fighting in the uniform of their country. They are Enemy Combatants, and therefore in my opinion have limited protections under the Geneva Conventions. But again, that's just my opinion, as I'm no lawyer.

[Mavdog]

nothing like a bit of myopia to cloud one's vision...google "jurisidiction".

rendition and the secret prisons were basic criminal kidnapping. it's an embarrassment that any nation who prides itself on the rule of law would engage in such an activity.