Update (7/7): Patterico chronicles his ongoing tussle with LA Times editor Dean Baquet.
Update (7/4): Michelle responds to critics: “This blog says spokespeople for Rumsfeld and Cheney are denying any security threat from the publication of the article…But none of this answers the question I posed to the Times’ editors repeatedly in my original post…”
—————————————————————————-
Alright. I’ll take them at their word.
I can’t seem to write short posts anymore like normal bloggers. What’s going on? Once I get started… 
The man on the left is Thomas Paine, an American Revolution-era political philosopher, journalist, and pamphleteer who openly advocated America’s independence from King George III. He published his most well-known work, Common Sense, anonymously, and helped spark the Revolutionary War.
I like to think of bloggers as modern-day pamphleteers, independently publishing our rabble-rousing views and complaints against the government. Although some bloggers may call for open revolt, which is unlikely to happen, it’s good to know we have freedom to express even extreme views. It’s never been easier for the “common man” to influence so many people at so little cost.
Over the years I’ve devoted quite a bit of bandwidth to ragging on left-leaning journalists. I may complain about what I perceive is a liberal agenda behind their every word, but I wholeheartedly support their constitutional right to report. More so than us pamphleteering bloggers, journalists, or legacy media, are seen as trusted sources of news. Yeah, you may trust a few bloggers, but we’re not “the press.”
A free press is vital to a free country. That’s why I’m sort of sitting on the fence about the New York Time’s recent story on a formerly secret government program.
Here’s some background:
1) On June 23, 2006, the New York Times ran a story (now behind a subscription wall) titled, Bank Data Sifted In Secret By U.S. To Block Terror, which provided details from anonymous government officials about a classified program conducted through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a Belgium-based cooperative that serves as a clearinghouse for financial transactions.
NYT claims the program wasn’t secret and that terrorists knew about it. Patterico asks, “Who?”
The U.S. tracks mostly overseas transactions to detect patterns of terrorist activity. The article acknowledged that SWIFT is legal, limited in scope, and successful in capturing terrorists. The Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal followed up with their own stories.
Although I’m suspicious of NYT’s motives, the tone of the story was more balanced than expected.
Many bloggers jumped on the story early, including Michelle Malkin. To save time and links, I’ll point you to a few of her posts, which contain lots of links, photoshopped WWII posters, and reader feedback: June 24, June 26 – A, June 26 – B, and a must-see Hot Air video that includes fish-wrapping. 
2) On June 28, after much derision, NYT published an editorial called Patriotism and the Press, defending its decision to print the story. Among the claims: It was not a security breach (as disclosure of troop movements would be), the public has a right to know about government snooping, and the editors will always err on the side publishing such information, even if called unpatriotic.
Michelle Malkin issues a call to protest NYT (post includes more photoshopped WWII posters). Update: Report and photos.
Patterico is fact-checking the LA Times and questioning its decision to publish a story about SWIFT. Latest posts here, here (disclosures kill), and here (letter to editor Dean Baquet).
President Bush calls disclosure of the SWIFT program disgraceful.
3) On July 1, NYT executive editor Bill Keller and Los Angeles Times editor Dean Baquet published a joint editorial , When Do We Publish a Secret?
4) On July 2, NYT published a story by public editor Brian Calame, Secrecy, Security, the President and the Press.
Michelle Malkin sees backpedaling. She also reports on a protest outside NYT’s DC offices.
That’s a lot of information, and there’s more still. But that’ll bring you up to speed. Of all the stories and op-eds I’ve read about this so-called scandal, Jeff Jarvis’s take is the best so far. He asks important questions I believe people on both sides of the aisle can agree are important:
They [NYT and LA Times] say that it is right and necessary for the press to report on what government is doing — and, of course, I agree — but they do not address the limits of that, other than to say that they know their limits and have not revealed other secrets in the past. So shouldn’t we know those limits as well? For if we don’t, then aren’t we merely trading blind faith in politicians, properly balanced by the press, with blind faith in editors, balanced by nothing more than government attacks — and now, perhaps, bloggers? Here’s how it works now: The editors reveal; the politicians accuse them of everything from jeopardizing programs to risking national security to committing treason; the editors and their defenders shoot back at the politicians. And we in the public are left without a roadmap: This government secret had to be revealed because…. This government secret could not be revealed because…. Shouldn’t the editors give us that map?
…
In his last letter, Keller tried to argue that it was not the job of The Times to judge the programs’ legality or effectiveness. Yet — I asked before — isn’t the decision about whether to violate the government secrets and reveal the workings of the program based on that very sort of judgment? Otherwise, why was the secret revealed? What made it necessary and newsworthy? Was it because the program was illegal or abusive or incompetent or dangerous? Where is the standard?
Keller tries to sound objective, but a decision to publish the classified info is a judgment call, just as a decision not to publish would be. Jeff wants to know the standard by which these decisions are made. With freedom comes responsibility. The press has to weigh the public’s right to know with the government’s duty to keep us safe. Jeff lets us know who checks the press:
And let’s be clear that the freedom and responsibility supposedly given to the press was truly given to the people. The press itself has no special franchise on that freedom. Indeed, if the press is a check on government, then the people — not the government — is the rightful check on the press. So the people deserve to know not only how government operates in our name but how the press operates in our name.
At the risk of blockquoting the entire post (because it’s filled with so many quotable quotes), I encourage you to read it. Forget about Jeff’s political affiliations (whatever they may be) and focus on what he’s saying as a blogger, journalist, and American just as concerned about the war against maniacs who want to cut off our heads.
Congressman Peter King calls for NYT’s prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917 for repeatedly revealing classified information. Last year I defended Woodrow Wilson’s brand of wartime propaganda, and I think NYT would do well to employ it every now and then. We are at war, after all.
But I don’t believe the editors should be charged with espionage. What do you think?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 51 comments }
>>I can’t seem to write short posts anymore like normal bloggers. What’s going on? Once I get started…
Maybe you’re filling the gap left by Stephen Den Beste.
You are spinning that protest like it was huge, but there were all but 5 people at Malkin’s dissent is patriotic picnic. (not all dissent though, only conservative)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stoller/sets/72157594185953958/
The NYT was a staunch supporter of the Iraq war and has “leaked” information favorable to Bush on many occasions. There needs to be a uniform standard when it comes to handling to such leaks. If the Bush Administration is fine leaking all it it wants when it comes to favorable stories, you can’t just get angry at a newspaper for writing an article about a surveillance program when you have mentioned it in various speeches from day one.
I’m not spinning anything. I told readers there was a protest. Period. I don’t know anything about it or how many people showed up. – Admin
Charge the editors with espionage? Maybe not. Public tongue lashings? Definitely. Ridicule for their weak reasons? Sure. It might be funny to see some of those photoshopped posters plastered around Manhattan and LA, but those of us on the right side don’t usually go around defacing public property.
“We are at war, after all.” Yeah, but what “war” is the press fighting?
We should see posters like we did in WWII. They don’t have to be racist characatures demonizing the enemy. Plenty of posters were used to build up support for the long haul and the troops. Remind us what we’re fighting against, not only who. Don’t think that they won’t ally with other groups who also hate America and freedom. Venezuela’s Chavez seems to be making common cause with them. Anyone who hates what we and the West stand for will join with them eventually. I wouldn’t even put it past Russia and China to find some way of supporting them covertly.
If it’s a war, let’s take to them fully.
I think the leakers who gave details to the press should prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also think that the press should be given some pushback from the federal government. I am confident, that if you or I put up a website with classified information on it, we would be in jail as soon as someone who recognized it as such noticed it. If we distributed pamphlets of classified information, we’d be hauled off. If we picked a random streetcorner and started yelling classified secrets, we be prosecuted. Why does the press get a free ride on this? The press is not/should not be more “free” than the people, and therefore no more above the laws than I am.
One of the differences between the early pamphleteers and today’s press is that those who spoke for radical change in the past, did so with a full expectation of retribution. They were willing to suffer and possibly die to spread their words. Today, no one wants to face the consequences of printing something radical. They just to print it anyway, but not have any consequences. If this story was so important, then let them stand up explain whay it was so important and be willing to face the consequences. Instead they just give us empty platitudes about “free press”.
Anyway, I hope that made -some- sense.
If this program was truly secret (I have heard, but not read that the SWIFT website tells of the program’s existence) then it is the Gov’t who must bear the responsibility. For it is the Gov’t that must keep its secrets.
The press must report what is news. The question of whether or not this is newsworthy is indeed debateable, with pros and cons on both sides.
But, at the risk of sounding Libertarian, if the Gov’t needs war-time powers, then it needs to declare war. The “war on terror” is debateable. We are at war in Iraq. We are at war in afghanistan. We are not at war with “terror.” That is so abstract as to have no meaning.
Here’s an easy solution, declare Al Queda an enemy state, and go to war with Al-Q. Until that time, the “war” on terror is as meaningless and amorphous as the “war” on drugs.
That said, “Government, the press is not your pal. If it is secret, keep it secret.” If it hits the press, it is fair game.
Lock ‘em up. Leaks kill as I mentioned at: http://www.independentconservative.com/2006/07/03/proof_media_helps_enemy/
La Shawn, you may want to see this and possibly add it to your list of the NY Times’ lame attempts to defend its actions in helping the enemy at a time of war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/19/ftn/main1419437.shtml
This is war and war is real. That means those who help the enemy by giving up secrets should be imprisoned. Everyone in the chain of making that information public should face charges. (And Bush was a fool for allowing anyone to speak to the press to try and spin the story differently. The NY Times should have been told “report and you go to prison” end of story!) Lincoln knew what the press (pro-Confederacy) would do even before the Civil War started and took preemptive action. I say he did the right thing. Subdue the enemy before he causes more of your people to be killed.
Why goes The NY Times ombudsman Byron Calame think it’s ok to reveal the SWIFT program because “hundreds of people knew about this†but it’s not ok to reveal Valerie Plume even though hundreds of people knew about her?
Or, put poetically:
SWIFT To Me Plume, My Darling
With Plume, just Americans knew.
With SWIFT, Terrorists got the whiff.
Reality Check: Maybe someone who reads this will next time check facts first before hacking away.
Rumsfeld okayed pictures of his home for NY Times
Blogger Glenn Greenwald is reporting that the published photograph of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s home on Maryland’s Eastern Shore were taken with the Secretary’s permission. Following the publication of the photo (right) by the New York Times,a number of well know bloggers and political commentators, including Michelle Malkin and David Horowitz, attacked the paper for putting the property at risk of attack.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Rumsfeld_OKs_pictures_of_his_home_0703.html
What is left of Malkin, Hinderaker and Horowitz’s credibility?
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-is-left-of-malkin-hinderaker-and.html
Oh and as for SWIFT
Here’s their website where you can join their organization and with your membership receive a subscription to their monthly magazine – TOP SECRET RIGHT?
[First, no one is arguing that Swift itself was "top secret": allowing the U.S. government access to certain financial transactions was the secret. Do your brain a favor: lay off the caffeine. Second, I didn't mention NYT publishing photos of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's private property. If you've got a problem with bloggers who have mentioned the photos, take it up with them. - Admin]
http://www.swift.com/
If you want to know if the government is monitoring YOUR bank account – go to the cmd prompt and enter “tracert” ” – last time I checked, Washington Mutual’s website and many, many others were being data mined. How can that be if Bush said were only going after the Terrorists and this program just applies to International transactions? YOU ARE BEING MONITORED AND TRACED WITH EVERYTHING YOU DO. IF YOU’RE NOT PISSED THAT YOU’VE BEEN A). LIED TO and B). in the eyes of the government are GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT BY THE INTRUSION OF YOUR PRIVACY, leave the country I love now!
I threw out some information in the garbage, sealing it/tearing it up and I saw some stranger going through the bin outside, I wouldn’t be too damn pleased or at minimum I might ask him what the heck he’s doing or hopes to find.
Last year I defended Woodrow Wilson’s brand of wartime propaganda, and I think NYT would do well to employ it every now and then. We are at war, after all.
——–
What we’re undertaking now is definitely some kind of military action but to my knowledge Congress has not actually declared war.
Tried giving you the benefit of the doubt. Mistake. You’re just another Internet freak. Your boss(es) at City National Bank would probably be embarrassed by your profane and ranting-lunatic comments. Advice: Don’t post any more. – Admin
When I opened a new bank account, I signed papers stating that I was who I was and that my account may be subject to monitoring by the government for anti-terrorism purposes.
When I opened a new investment accounts, I signed papers stating that I was who I was and that my account may be subject to monitoring by the government for anti-terrorism purposes.
I saw news reports showing organizations/charities that were shut down because they were suspected of passing money to terrorist organizations. The reports showed federal officals saying they tracked the money flow from individuals to suspected terrorists and that individuals giving money may also face investigations.
So, pardon me if I seem jaded concerning all of the hullabalo.
Although the person behind comment #8 had to be shown the door, their comment might lead people to get the wrong impression about folks like Malkin if they don’t know that Michelle Malkin and David Horowitz have responded to those claims.
Whether it’s a report about someone in the Administration’s address at any of their homes or a report about the Top Secret side of SWIFT, the issue is “Why”? What has the NY Times done of value with these reports? All they’ve done is offer information that any enemy otherwise might not have known. (And given the report about the Top Secret side of SWIFT after even “Murtha” asked them not to do it, who can beleive they would have listened to Rumsfeld if he said “no”?)
First of all, let’s find the leakers of classified information and prosecute them to the fullest extent. Then let’s see what kind of role the NYT played in the leak and we’ll see what kind of charges, if any, are supportable. If any lives have been endangered, including my own, I want their hide! lol
LaShawn, once in a while I flip over to Kos just to see what the other side is up to and their topics are so short as to have no depth whatsoever. Your articles are well developed essays with introductions, bodies and conclusions. What I also like about them is they are personal. I can almost “see” the expression on your face and “hear” your voice through your words. Keep on writing the way you do and don’t worry about length.
“I can’t seem to write short posts anymore like normal bloggers. What’s going on? Once I get started… “
That’s not a bad thing at all! I’m sure I speak for a lot of others when I say that even though I disagree with you on a number of things, I always enjoy reading your posts because they are always thoughtful and well-written (and especially in the case of your coverage of the Duke scandal, informative).
On-topic, I really can’t think of anything to say that Jeff Jarvis didn’t say better. He’s got it absolutely spot-on. And I agree with you, La Shawn, that the editors shouldn’t be charged. But the government should go after the leakers with everything it can throw at them. This was a program that was working to catch terrorists. Now it’s not!
The press needs to learn to exercise its power more responsibly. And if there’s another attack on American soil, the NYT and the LAT should hold their hands up to the American people and say “Sorry, we took away one of the tools the government was using to protect you because we wanted to sell papers – and because we appear to genuinely think that we’re America’s moral guardians.”
This is an outstanding article La Shawn and thank you for the great information.
When the next terrorist incident occurs on US soil, let the victims lawyers include the NYTimes as being partially at fault because they blew the cover on the SWIFT program.
A sucessful wrongful death suit will instill a new level of fear and loathing in the NYTimes. Particularly if it qualifies as a class action.
Your article made me see the public’s responsibility regarding the Fourth Estate. Now I am on the outskirts of those who cry “Off with their heads”.
Now that I think of it, a charge of treason will not do any good. Perhaps a nationwide boycott of the NYTimes will do that since money is all that people care about nowadays (I’m not making a dig at those who work).
The NY Times has become the daily journal of American treason, and a grave threat to the lives of every one of us. This vile rag should be utterly destroyed financially, and its publisher, editors, and culpable reporters should spend the rest of their miserable lives buried in the darkest hole of the Federal SuperMax in Colorado.
My greatest hope is that the subscriber base of the Times continues to shrink until the rag is as narrowly focused as Rolling Stone, with which it shares its leftist philosophy.
In the meantime, the Times must be called to account in some fashion or another, in order to get to the names of the government workers who originated the leaks. Those people need to be found, fired and locked up.
Last year I defended Woodrow Wilson’s brand of wartime propaganda, and I think NYT would do well to employ it every now and then. We are at war, after all.
(Fred) One of the main hurdles to cross is getting NYT editors and their ilk to recognize that we are at war, regardless if congress has declared it officially. At this point, they don’t see it this way. They have a self imposed, postmodern myopia that has warped their sense to discern true, threatening evil against our society and way of life.
This is a bad place to be, because it is not until after their cherished western values they take for granted like freedom of the press and the ability to trash talk a sitting president have been taken away and they are toiling in oppressive dhimmnitude under sharia law will they wake up to the reality of what is happening now.
Of course, by that time, it is too late.
Fred
The only checks that the people have on the press is to either subscribe to them or not and/or debate their reliability, accuracy, or prudence. Ultimately, the reputation and credibility of a news source comes from how reliable, accurate, and prudent the stories are that the outlet decides to publish. In the SWIFT case, it seems that the first 2 conditions were met. As for the 3rd, well, that’s where all the outrage comes from…
In the case of war, where lives are at stake, where our survival is at stake, publishing a story that exposes a tool sucessfully used to catch our enemies is foolhardy, it shows poor judgement. Also, the public cannot give the press a collective “Shut the F#$@ up” (though it looks like Malkin et al are trying). So as much as I hate to say it, the government should go after the press.
To comment #18: “Perhaps a nationwide boycott of the NYTimes…”
Of course that’s the right response. Always has been. Calls for treason charges and government control are over the top and inevitably ineffective. Such measures would prove the argument that the government needs to be watched closer than the obvious expectation the founders intended. Stop buying their product, and the product will change.
–
La Shawn: Excellent post. Even though I rarely agree with you, this type of sane, independent thinking is why I come back.
If you people really wish to make war on ‘terror’ I wish you would find your way to the nearest recruiting office. The Army has raised the enlistment age to 42, so no excuses.
The Times, as well as most other major media outlets, are profit making corporations in a highly competitive business enviroment. It is simply silly for the Times to claim objectivity and attempt to wrap themsselves in “Truth, Justice and the American…….uh, that would be “…and all that Stuff” in their case, like some virtuous protector of Thomas Paine type freedom of the press.
This was a good scoop, made even more valuable in their eyes by the fact the government, both Repubs and Dems, made strong opposition to printing it. It was primarily a business competitive(financial) decision and secondarily a political one intended to make George look bad.
It is always fun and amusing to watch business people like Keller come out and try to spin their selfish behavior into a virtuous one. Todays MSM is no different than any other business looking after THEIR self interest. Not yours, not mine, not their country’s, but theirs.
Gregdn blathered: “If you people really wish to make war on ‘terror’ I wish you would find your way to the nearest recruiting office. The Army has raised the enlistment age to 42, so no excuses.”
I assume, Greg, that your use of the term “you people” means that you prefer not to fight against terror. Interesting plan.
LaShawn–thanks so much for your article, and for linking to Jeff’s. It really spelled out for me clearly what’s been missing, which is the standard that the MSM has been applying in their war reporting. One wishes they would be so kind as to spell it out to us, so that we could understand more clearly their motivation in their reporting. It would help to have a guideline to gage them by.
Excellent piece! Happy Independence Day–230 years of freedom–may it continue for many, many more!
>>It was primarily a business competitive(financial) decision and secondarily a political one intended to make George look bad.>>
Along with some others…
The NYT 10 worst articles from the standpoint of patriotism…
http://tinyurl.com/g8dqa
“Among the claims: It was not a security breach (as disclosure of troop movements would be)”
In other days, disclosure of troop movements would be critical information to the enemy signaling the method of attack. Contrary to the NYTs statement, revealing computer tracking _is_ equivalent to disclosing troop movements. Or at the very least, it’s revealing our observations on _their_ troop movements. No less important. In any war, information gathering can mean the difference between winning and losing. The fact that it’s done by computers instead of feet on the ground doesn’t make it any less critical.
The leakers to the NYT are in the first group that should be prosecuted, but imo, the NYT was seditious in printing the material, just as they would have been had they published the troop movements. Two statements have been made that pertain:
1)If the information about SWIFT had been encoded on a microchip and delivered to OBL, there would have been no doubt about it having been treason. Because it was published and spread around the world, some say it is not.
2)If the information was known so widely, why was it headline news? Either it was news and most people didn’t know about it, or it was known by most people and it wasn’t news. They can’t have it both ways.
RedBeard Said: “In the meantime, the Times must be called to account in some fashion or another, in order to get to the names of the government workers who originated the leaks. Those people need to be found, fired and locked up.”
SteveDinMD: You are justified in your anger toward those in Government who leaked the information, but the reporters, editors, and publisher at the NYT are equally responsible, and equally liable under the law. In fact, each COPY of the NYT knowingly printed with classified information can be prosecuted as a separate offense — MILLIONS of individual offenses. The Times’ publisher, therefore, is provably the single greatest criminal in the history of the United States, who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and who should receive his just punishment without mercy. Failure to prosecute makes a mockery of both the law and our national security.
Do you want to stop leaks of classified information? Prosecute those at the Times responsible for this hideous crime, and the leaks will stop in due course. Offer some culpable reporter a plea deal in exchange for his/her truthful testimony against any and all leakers. These vermin, faced with life terms, will instantly roll over. The important thing to understand is that these people need to be crushed NOW. Delay will only embolden them, putting all our lives in ever greater jeopardy.
Randolphus Maximus Said: “The only checks that the people have on the press is to either subscribe to them or not and/or debate their reliability, accuracy, or prudence.”
SteveDinMD: You are mistaken. The view you express is a widely believed fallicy promoted by the media. In point of fact the publisher of the NYT under the law enjoys no greater legitimacy as a “journalist” than a six-year-old child writing in crayon. He is also no less obliged to obey the law than any other citizen. If it is a crime for you or me to knowingly divulge classified information, it is no less a crime for him. The only difference is that the Times’ publisher, by virtue of his position, is able to inflict far more injury than either of us. The man is a criminal. The most obvious and most effective “check” on his misbehavior is to prosecute him.
Oops! I meant “fallacy.”
La Shawn, I don’t know if what the NY Times did was espionage, but they did publish government secrets that they had no legal right to do so.
If the Times had instead published names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and credit card numbers of government officials on Page 1, I doubt that anyone would have trouble with prosecuting Keller and Co. to the fullest extent of the law. So why the foot-dragging by certain individuals when the Times illegally prints something of a far more serious nature? Even the Times grudgingly admited that this program was not illegal.
Jim R Said: “It is always fun and amusing to watch business people like Keller come out and try to spin their selfish behavior into a virtuous one. Todays MSM is no different than any other business looking after THEIR self interest. Not yours, not mine, not their country’s, but theirs.”
SteveDinMD: Bravo! Had it been Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling (of Enron infame) who had made the Swift disclosure, no one would have objected to the immorality of prosecuting them.
Food for thought: If the NYT publisher were to widely print deliberately misleading financial information in order to boost the Times’ stock price and thereby enrich himself, would he be immune to proscution under some contorted “press freedom” theory? If yes, then maybe Lay and Skilling were simply in the wrong line of business. If no, then why should he be immune from prosecution for enriching himself by publishing classified information. Common spies do no less.
Incidentally, Keller based part of his defense to publishing this story on the creative excuse that it was not really secret. So if he is correct and if the Times wins a Pulitzer for this story, it will mean they will have won it for publishing something “everybody knew”. This is journalism?!
#24 said: “If you people really wish to make war on ‘terror’ I wish you would find your way to the nearest recruiting office. The Army has raised the enlistment age to 42, so no excuses.”
Gregdn, If you really wish for your home not to burn to the ground, I wish you would find your way to city hall and fill out an application to be a firefighter. Or, if you expect your neighborhood to be safe, apply to the police department. If you’re not willing to take either of those jobs, you shouldn’t expect to be protected should you? I don’t know the age limit in your town for those jobs, but based upon your comment, you’re probably well within range.
Would Keller have endorsed the publishing in 1942 of the fact that the U.S. Navy’s cryptanalytic unit, OP-20G, had partially broken JN-25 and other Japanese naval ciphers? Intelligence derived from this source contributed to the U.S. victory in the Battle of Midway and other actions. Prior to Midway, the value of this source would have been questionable to people like Keller. Long after the war, however, its value is now obvious to all.
The public has no means at this juncture to assess the damage this fool has done to our national security. Perhaps thousands — or even MILLIONS — of Americans will die as a consequence. We have no way of knowing. Neither might we be able to trace some future cataclysm back to its origins in this story. What we DO know right now is that Keller committed a crime. The only question is whether or not he will be prosecuted for it.
As a follow up, this is an interesting read. In case you might have some doubt as to the bias of some newspaper editors…
http://tinyurl.com/kewcr
It seems we are missing the point here…
I dont see this as any type of treason or espionage whatsoever. The US tracking the banking records of suspected terrorists? I kinda figured this anyway, they’ve been doing this for years.
Not news to me. I’m sure the gov’t tracks all kinds of things about us we have no idea about, I’m concerned with what they do with the info.
Has the US not been tracking terrorist activity for years?
I dont like to give the terrorists credit, but I’m pretty sure that they are smart enough to know that the government is tracking them.
Again, the hypocrisy…conservative leaning Wall Street Journal prints the same things, yet there is no response.
When will those in power come to terms with what actually caused caused those attacks on 9/11?
Determined terrorists helped by apathetic law enforcement.
lukeNC Said: “Not news to me. I’m sure the gov’t tracks all kinds of things about us we have no idea about, I’m concerned with what they do with the info.”
SteveDinMD: That’s very interesting. I’m impressed, but perhaps the rest of the world lacks your omniscience. Simply put, if it weren’t news, the Times wouldn’t have printed it, and the story wouldn’t have generated such controversy. Denying the damage by arguing that there was, in effect, no disclosure because it is widely known that “…the Government, err, tracks stuff…” and sources such as this are consequently foreseeable by the enemy betrays either the ignorance or the disingenuousness of the person making the argument.
Remember; back in 1942 it was widely assumed that governments regularly attempted cryptanalysis against their enemies’ cipher systems. Information pertaining to the success, or failure, or specific targets of such attempts was extremely damaging to disclose. The same holds precisely true in this case.
Seal-lover said “Gregdn, If you really wish for your home not to burn to the ground, I wish you would find your way to city hall and fill out an application to be a firefighter. Or, if you expect your neighborhood to be safe, apply to the police department. If you’re not willing to take either of those jobs, you shouldn’t expect to be protected should you?”
Exquisite response from an exquisite thinker!
The defenders of the New York Times can deny it until the cows come home, but the leftist agenda of the NYT is as obvious as it is despicable.
The Times should change its motto from the highly inaccurate “All The News That’s Fit to Print” to the more honest “All the news that Howard Dean says to print.”
H-m-m-m… Are the NYT cum LATimes cum WSJ divorced from concern for the nation and simply chroniclers of uncovered information?
Suppose that during WWII Roosevelt decided to make a run to liberate the internees (he knew the details, but refused to act) from concentration capms such as Dachau, would these same papers have printed the plans under the philosophy of “screw the Jews, our readers have the right to know”?
This would not have been treason. A few more incinerated Jews would not have had any much effect on the progress of the war. In fact, as Roosevelt decided, it would have been a military distraction.
In fact, Roosevelt had fairly good intelligence about the plight of the Jews. So did the NYT and the WSJ and probably the LATimes, but they all kept mum and let them burn. Roosevelt was even confronted with the “Sophie’s Choice” of bombing the concentration camps to destroy the internees and the ovens and system for perpetuating the atrocity and he looked the other way: all without any newspaper intervening with the right of the people to know.
The Bush administration burrows into the minutia of terrorists hiding money and all of a sudden the newspapers decide this is so important that people need to know that the earth is about to be thrown off its axis.
While the First Amendment was written to protect political speech, it is highly questionable if it was ever meant to anoint unelected, irresponsible journalists with immunity from impeding the orderly (if secret) progress of the public interest.
I recoil at the “treason” argument; it is as far off center as the reporting. I can only ask the NYT, et al. to tell us what side they are on. If they say:”the truth” it is a lame and cliched answer.
If “the truth” is the goal, they would report that Al Franken is a no-talent loser, Helen Thomas is ugly and senile, most of their advertisers are charlatans, social security is busting the budget and will sink the next generation, global warming is conjecture at best, journalists are not objective, money talks and Hitler was right (along with Machiavelli) about “the big lie.”
Von Clausewitz is credited with saying “war is diplomacy by other means.” Well, the NYT, et al. have shown that journalism is “politics by other means.”
I do believe that the NYTimes should be tried. They are abusing their freedoms when they expose secrets that in turn hinders our defenders from doing their jobs. The fact that they’ve done this not only once, but two and possibly three times has alot of people at their thresholds of tolerance.
I think the reason they won’t be tried is because this administration respects the freedom of the press. Any move against the paper would be reported as censorship or worse, plus, we don’t need any gov’t officials advocating the take-over of any newspaper or news organization a la Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. State sponsored media could result with the wrong person in office.
If the gov’t prosecutes, the NYTimes will squeal like a pig about it, so they have to decide if its worth the bad press. However, if this happens again, I don’t think the public will stand for it and action will be taken. God help us all.
If it were up to me, I’d execute a search warrant at the Times building with 1000 deputy U.S. marshals in riot gear with battering rams. All the computers and paper files should be seized and impounded pending a thorough search. After being unable to publish for a month or so, they’d be permanently out of business. Arthur Sulzberger is the Usamma Bin Laden of the American press, boldly and cheerfully enabling mass murder of our citizens. For this country to survive, both he and his vile Communist rag must be destroyed.
“You people”
Watch for that one, it is the pet phrase of the bigoted.
.
I’m still trying to figure out what all these people have to hide, who are angry about the government tracking their banking and overseas phone calls. Even if there were something nefarious going on (vast right wing conspiracy), the government doesn’t have the resources to go after you because you are gambling online or something else as innocuous. But if you are money laundering for a drug dealer or to help terrorists, then don’t try to hide behind your “right to privacy”.
Craig C
“I can’t seem to write short posts anymore like normal bloggers. What’s going on? Once I get started…”
That’s because you’re NOT a normal blogger..
Thanks, Fred.
– Admin
As someone who has served in this country’s navy, I must say that I find the whole situation inconceivable. The NYT is not the classifying authority for this type of information and, that being the case, should not be allowed to publish it. The NYT’s claim that it did not believe that the information was classified is proof that it is lying since they were contacted by the USG and asked not to publish.
Just as a refresher to the reader:
Top Secret (TS)
The highest level of classification of material. Such material would cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security if publicly available.
Secret
Such material would cause “serious damage” to national security if publicly available.
Confidential
Such material would cause “damage” or be “prejudicial” to national security if publicly available.
Restricted
Such material would cause “undesirable” effects if publicly available. Some countries do not have such a classification.
Unclassified
Technically not a classification level, but is used for government documents that do not have a classification listed above. Such documents can be viewed by those without security clearance.
*from wikipedia
That word “grave” means exactly what you would think. Someone will in all probability die.
I recognize the press is an important freedom, it’s one of the most solid ways to keep the nation in check, without newspapers, television, and bloggers, your average american would have no idea what’s going on in our government. I must in this case defer to something I read that was written by Bill Mahr (when will he run for president?) In his book “When you Ride Alone, you Ride with Bin Laden” he states that there’s a different breed of people, who treat war differently. During the World Wars, we went to war, and the people at home were asked to save metal, fabric, grease, food, silk, people started victory gardens. The war on terror begins and what are the President’s orders? Go, drive your SUV’s to the mall and buy things. What happened to understanding that some times, to protect your rights, you must sometimes surrender them for the greater good. People aren’t willing to sacrafice for victory anymore. Even the article claims the project was effective, limited, and well managed. So I ask, what would it have costed the NYT not to publish it? They’re clearly not worried that the rights of americans are being violated. Meaning they’re doing it because it’s something they think will make people buy their paper, I don’t think is worth even potentially risking a program that does some good. If there was any doubt in their mind that every single terrorist knew about the program, they should have shut their mouth. That’s all there is to it, it was sensationalist and as of right now, I put the NYT right next to the newspaper in the check out line telling me that Tony Danza was abducted by aliens, cause I dont care if the terrorists know that.
Hey Jan!
I miss you!
It is important to remember that “freedom of the press” is not freedom for some particular group of people or some particular industry. It is like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, the freedom for everyone to do certain things. All people have the right to publish information and opinions.
These rights are not unlimited. I, you and the NYT can not legally publish copyrighted material (w/o permission). I, you and the NYT can not start riots with our speech. If the government leakers had given La Shawn the information about this program she would have had the same rights to put it on her website as the NYT had to publish it in their paper. If it is illegal for us ordinary joes to publish this stuff, it is illegal for the NYT.
I have a government clearance. I was hired to do a job, not elected to effect government policy. During the inbrief I was asked what my reaction would be to seeing classified material that indicated government actions to which I was opposed. My reply then, as now, is that it isn’t my material (information); it belongs to the government. Further, most clearance holders are not allowed to see the whole picture, only the small part they are responsible for. Compartmentation of information limits the knowlege that any one person may have about a project. This, hopefully, limits the damage any one person can do but it can also mean that one person may think what he is revealing is small but is in fact a small part of a large picture. This means that the damage done by one person can have effects far more extensive than they can see.
There are many ways to profit. Some like money. Some like power. Others like to feel that they’ve done something important. I’ve heard it said that money is the root of all evil. You can buy a lot of evil with money but the real root of evil is pride of self.
In order to do something we need motivation, profit from that particular enterprise. The lack of a money transfer isn’t proof of a lack of profit.
When someone with a clearance takes information that they have been entrusted with and releases it into unauthorized channels he is stealing. Probably, he (or she) has seen that condor movie and sees himself as the heroic revealer of government evildoers. Or, maybe he sees himself as an important whistleblower. Whatever they see themselves as they are just thieves. And the agencies that trade in stolen goods are just fences. There isn’t any nobility in trading in the merchandize of thieves.
There are some undeniable truths about those that abuse the trust of a clearance:
1.) They know they are doing something illegal.
2.) Their actions undo the good work done by the other 99.9% of their co-workers.
3.) They place their own pride above their integrity and the wellbeing of their Country.
Comments on this entry are closed.