CNN uses personal journal of slain Ambassador as source material

What was reported from the journal was that the ambassador had reason to believe an attack was imminent. If he knew something was amiss, and the U.S. did nothing about it, that's a story, folks.

wicked -- good point. I still question if this was an active crime scene being investigated by our authorities. I tend to err on the side of freedom of the press, but if actual laws were broken, that's where it gets really fuzzy.

 

Eh, questions about the State Department's preparation for the attack were out there already. He's an excellent "source," certainly, but I think the value of the journal's contribution to existing information versus the ethical morass of releasing it minus the family's permission is still open to question. From a First Amendment standpoint I'd love to always believe the release of information is valuable, but practically I don't actually believe this.

Again, I think this was fair game. I'm just not sure whether I think it was actually the right call by CNN.

 

Good post. I see what you're saying.

 

Yep. Though we should say "consulate" in this case lest someone call us on the difference.

Same rules apply though and the FBI was investigating the attack. I assume the investigation is still on-going which is why I raised the question about tampering with a crime scene.

 

Absolutely fair play.
The government is only up in arms because it makes them look like the liars they've been about this.

 

?

 

While I certainly don't have a problem with the Obama Administration being exposed for the liars they are the FBI is still investigating this attack. CNN - or whoever found the diary - did remove potential evidence from an active crime scene. That's against the law even if you're a journalist.

 

What's the administration lying about?

 

Stay Classy

 

Did Rahm hack into the spokesman's email?