More Calls For Prosecuting the NY Times and Ilk

[Annie]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_new_york_times_at_war_with.html

June 26, 2006
The New York Times at War With America
By Michael Barone

Why do they hate us? No, I'm not talking about Islamofascist terrorists. We know why they hate us: because we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, because we refuse to treat women as second-class citizens, because we do not kill homosexuals, because we are a free society.

No, the "they" I'm referring to are the editors of The New York Times. And do they hate us? Well, that may be stretching it. But at the least they have gotten into the habit of acting in reckless disregard of our safety.

Last December, the Times ran a story revealing that the National Security Agency was conducting electronic surveillance of calls from suspected al-Qaida terrorists overseas to persons in the United States. This was allegedly a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But in fact the president has, under his war powers, the right to order surveillance of our enemies abroad. And it makes no sense to hang up when those enemies call someone in the United States -- rather the contrary. If the government is going to protect us from those who wish to do us grievous harm -- and after Sept. 11 no one can doubt there are many such persons -- then it should try to track them down as thoroughly as possible.

Little wonder that President Bush called in Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and top editor Bill Keller, and asked them not to run the story. But the Times went ahead and published it anyway. Now, thanks to The New York Times, al-Qaida terrorists are aware that their phone calls can be monitored, and presumably have taken precautions.

Last Friday, the Times did it again, printing a story revealing the existence of U.S. government monitoring of financial transactions routed through the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which routes about $6 trillion a day in electronic money transfers around the world. The monitoring is conducted by the CIA and supervised by the Treasury Department. An independent auditing firm has been hired to make sure only terrorist-related transactions are targeted.

Members of Congress were briefed on the program, and it does not seem to violate any law, at least any that the Times could identify. And it has been effective. As the Times reporters admit, it helped to locate the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing in Thailand and a Brooklyn man convicted on charges of laundering a $200,000 payment to al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan.

Once again, Bush administration officials asked the Times not to publish the story. Once again, the Times went ahead anyway. "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration," Bill Keller is quoted as saying. It's interesting to note that he feels obliged to report he and his colleagues weren't smirking or cracking jokes. "We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

This was presumably the view as well of the "nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives" who were apparently the sources for the story.

But who elected them to make these decisions? Publication of the Times' December and June stories appears to violate provisions of the broadly written, but until recently, seldom enforced provisions of the Espionage Act. Commentary's Gabriel Schoenfeld has argued that the Times can and probably should be prosecuted.

The counterargument is that it is a dangerous business for the government to prosecute the press. But it certainly is in order to prosecute government officials who have abused their trust by disclosing secrets, especially when those disclosures have reduced the government's ability to keep us safe. And pursuit of those charges would probably require reporters to disclose the names of those sources. As the Times found out in the Judith Miller case, reporters who refuse to answer such questions can go to jail.

Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?

 

[Adam's Apple]

People should get in touch with their elected representatives and INSIST that these betrayals be stopped. The NYT and those who provided the information to them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. In times of war, we can't have a fifth column operating openly against us. This is clearly an irresponsible press aiding and abetting the enemy.

 

[Bullypulpit]

While they're at it they can press their elected representatives to put pressure on the Administration to prosecute its own leakers.

 

[Annie]

While they're at it they can press their elected representatives to put pressure on the Administration to prosecute its own leakers.

It's right there, Bully:

But it certainly is in order to prosecute government officials who have abused their trust by disclosing secrets, especially when those disclosures have reduced the government's ability to keep us safe. And pursuit of those charges would probably require reporters to disclose the names of those sources. As the Times found out in the Judith Miller case, reporters who refuse to answer such questions can go to jail.

 

[jillian]

Oh...but those are the "good" leakers.

 

[CSM]

While they're at it they can press their elected representatives to put pressure on the Administration to prosecute its own leakers.

I hate to say it (I really really do not like agreeing with Bully on ANYTHING) but Bully is right. Not that the leaker is necessarily one of the Administration but that the leaker of this particular information needs to be caught and prosecuted and then summarily shot.

 

[CSM]

Oh...but those are the "good" leakers.

LOL...yep they are; the ones who leak classified information that compromises national security are "bad" leakers.

 

[jillian]

LOL...yep they are; the ones who leak classified information that compromises national security are "bad" leakers.

RAFLMAO!! As opposed to the ones who leak classified information in order to advance the admin's agenda.... lol...

 

[CSM]

RAFLMAO!! As opposed to the ones who leak classified information in order to advance the admin's agenda.... lol...

See ...you are learning!

ANYONE who is found guilty of leaking calssified information should be prosecuted ( and I do mean anyone FOUND GUILTY). If the information is declassified and then "leaked" ; that is a different story all together.

 

[Annie]

It's asymmetrical warfare, but that doesn't matter either:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWE2Zjk3NDU5ZDVjNzBiNGU1NGQ1YmY5Mzg3MTY1ODA=

June 26, 2006, 7:31 a.m.

They’re Just More Important Than You Are
Are any secrets more important than the New York Times’s sources?

By Andrew C. McCarthy

The echo trails off the last defiantly gleeful chorus of “We Are the World.” Reality stubbornly dawns on you: There really are bad people out there. They are the world, too. And they want to kill you.

They refuse to be reasoned with. They can afford to. They’re not a country. They don’t have to worry about defending a territory. They are seeped into places that can’t be bombed into submission. They are the world, after all. They are the children — or at least hidden among them. No “Mutually Assured Destruction” here.

No, you have only one defense: Intelligence. Superpower power is useless. What are you gonna do? Hit them where they live? Bomb Hamburg? Bomb London? Bomb New York?

Not an option. Your nukes, stealth fighters, carpet bombers … they’re largely irrelevant. This is not about killing an advancing brigade. It’s about killing cells. A handful of operatives here and there, nestled among millions of innocents.

The real challenge is not how to kill them — or at least capture them. It’s how to find them. How to identify them from among the hordes they dress like, sound like, and even act like … right up until the moment they board a plane. Or wave cheerily alongside a naval destroyer. Or park their nondescript van in the catacombs of a mighty skyscraper.

The only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to gather intelligence. It is to collect the information that reveals who the jihadists are, who is backing them with money and resources, and where they are likely to strike. There is nothing else.

How do you get such intelligence? Your options are few. The terrorists you capture, you squeeze until they break. Since your laws and protocols forbid physical coercion, you must employ psychological pressure — relentless detachment and loneliness that may render a battle-hard, hate-obsessed detainee hopeless enough and dependent enough on his interrogators to tell you the deepest, deadliest secrets. So you move your captives to places where they will be isolated, and forlorn, and … eventually — maybe after a very long time — moved to tell you what they know about their fellow savages.

Otherwise, you use your technological wizardry to penetrate their communications. You use your mastery of the global web that is modern finance to find the money and follow it — until you can pierce the veiled charities and masked philanthropists behind the terror dollars. Until you strangle the supply lines that convert hatred into action.

All the while, you never underestimate your enemies. You know they are clever, resourceful, and adaptive. You know they study you, just as you are studying them. More effectively, in fact. After all, when you find their vulnerabilities, there is still due process. When they find yours, there is murder. Mass murder.

Life or death. Which one it will be turns solely on intelligence and secrecy. Can you find out how they next intend to kill you, can you stop them, and can you prevent them from knowing how you know … so you can stop them again?

Simple as that. Modernity has changed many things, but it hasn’t changed that. In command of the first American military forces, and facing a deadly enemy, George Washington himself observed that the “necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged…. pon Secrecy, Success depends in Most Enterprises ... and for want of it, they are generally defeated.”

What on earth would George Washington have made of Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, and his comrades in today’s American media?

What would he have made of transparently politicized free-speech zealots who inform for the enemy and have the nerve to call it “patriotism.”

Who say, “If you try to isolate barbarians to make them hand up the other barbarians, we will expose it.”

“If you try to intercept enemy communications — as victorious militaries have done in every war ever fought — we will tell all the world, including the enemy, exactly what you’re up to.”

“If you track the enemy’s finances, we will blow you out of the water. We’ll disclose just what you’re doing and just how you’re doing it. Even if it’s saving innocent lives.”

And why this last? Remember five years ago, back when they figured “you’re not doing enough” was the best way to bash the Bush administration? Remember the Times and its ilk — disdainful of aggressive military responses — tut-tutting about how the disruption of money flows was the key to thwarting international terrorists. So why compromise that?

Is there some illegality going on in the government’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (exposed by the Times and other news outlets Friday)? No, no laws have been broken. Is there some abuse of power? No, there seem to have been extraordinary steps taken to inform relevant officials and win international cooperation. Why then? Why take action that can only aid and comfort the enemy in wartime?

Because, Keller haughtily pronounced, American methods of monitoring enemy money transfers are “a matter of public interest.”

Really? The Times prattles on about what it claims is a dearth of checks and balances, but what are the checks and balances on Bill Keller? Can it be that our security hinges on whether the editor of an antiwar, for-profit journal thinks some defense measure might be interesting?

Well, here’s something truly interesting: There are people in the U.S. intelligence community who are revealing the nation’s most precious secrets.

The media aspire to be the public’s watchdog? Ever on the prowl to promote good government? Okay, here we have public officials endangering American lives. Public officials whose violation of a solemn oath to protect national defense information is both a profound offense against honor and a serious crime.

What about the public interest in that? What about the public interest in rooting out those who betray their country in wartime?

Not on your life.

National-security secrets? All fair game. If it’s about how we detain, or infiltrate, or defang the monsters pledged to kill us, the New York Times reserves the right to derail us any time it finds such matters … interesting.

But the media’s own sources? That, and that alone, is sacrosanct. Worth protecting above all else.

National-security secrets, after all, are merely the public treasure that keeps us alive. Press informants are the private preserve of the media.

And they’re just more important than you are.

 

[jillian]

See ...you are learning!

ANYONE who is found guilty of leaking calssified information should be prosecuted ( and I do mean anyone FOUND GUILTY). If the information is declassified and then "leaked" ; that is a different story all together.

Even if the admin says..."ooh... this propaganda would help us? poof! it's declassified!"?

It's always amazing to see what you guys will tolerate from these people.

 

[Annie]

And this morning Bill Keller gives us hubris and condescension. Funny, he assumes the readers are just not very bright. What part of the first amendment does he think was given to 'the press'? Those rights were given to the American people, not to any institution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/media/25keller-letter.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

Don't you love his 'common touch' closing?

June 25, 2006
Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report

The following is a letter Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, has sent to readers who have written to him about The Times's publication of information about the government's examination of international banking records:

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements.

Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.

Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others — national security experts not serving in the Administration — for their counsel. It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places — New York and the Washington area — that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.

The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk.

It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it.

We weighed most heavily the Administration's concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program.

By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year's reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would — if the public knew what they were doing — withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before. Members of Congress have proposed to amend the law to put the eavesdropping program on a firm legal footing. And the man who presided over it and defended it was handily confirmed for promotion as the head of the CIA.

A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.

I can appreciate that other conscientious people could have gone through the process I've outlined above and come to a different conclusion. But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues.

Thanks for writing.

Regards,
Bill Keller

 

[CSM]

Even if the admin says..."ooh... this propaganda would help us? poof! it's declassified!"?

Yep. Once it is declassified by those who have the authority to do so, it simply isn't classified. The difference is "the authority to do so". The NYT or the one who leaked this recent info clearly do not have the authority to declassify the information...so prosecute away.

It's always amazing to see what you guys will tolerate from these people.

You may not like the process currently in place for handling classified information, but until it is changed, those are the rules. You may not like it and I may not like it but then again nobody asked me if I like it or not...maybe they did ask you. Obviously, all politicians use such rules to their advantage....

I have to ask this then based on your response above:

Should the leaker of this latest classified information NOT be prosecuted because others have leaked declassified information that was advantageous (so you say) to the current administration?

 

[Annie]

Hugh Hewitt fisks it:

http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/06/25-week/index.php#a002571

Mr. Keller Believes You Are Easily Confused
by Hugh Hewitt
June 25, 2006 06:34 PM EST

The NYT's Executive Editor Bill Keller refuses interviews but does provide a wholly unpersuasive reponse that is, at best, defensive posturing.

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.

First, unless Mr. Keller makes himself available for interviews on this subject, he is not taking the questions and concerns seriously.

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.

The very first thing Mr. Keller does is suggest that "conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits" are behind the uproar. This is not responsive at all to any of the many criticisms of the decision to publish, and the parenthetical aside is absurd --does he really think that the story is more publicized among terrorists because critics react to it? He must believe the terrorists to be very stupid indeed, but in so arguing reveals himself to be ignorant of the very sophisticated internet tacticians among the jihadists.

And the sentence noting the support he has received is more posturing. Unless every letter received is published, we have no way of knowing what his mail says, and no reason to trust him.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

This is the first asssertion by Mr. Keller that the Times is above the law. It is also a crude trick to exchange the publication of national security secrets for "taking the President at his word," which is most certainly not what triggered the outrage.

Nor has his paper "surrendered" anything obviously. I haven't seen one argument that the story could have been enjoined, only that its publication violated the law and damaged the national security.

The straw men are falling fast.

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

Deep into the letter and we still have no argument over his right to violate national security laws or endanger national security. So what if he tells us he "agonizes" over these decisions.

The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest.

In a half dozen years inside the government and 17 years as a journalist, I have never --never-- heard or seen any government official say that they want the press to "publish only the official line." That is simply false and hilariously so.

For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials.

Mr. Keller might have quoted a particular example, but if he had, it would have been too easy to refute another slap dash "argument." Lots of folks have criticized lots of stories out of Iraq, but no responsible official has argued that the public not be given unplesant or complicated news.

Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

Ah, the Bay of Pigs. President Kennedy's remorse. Again, a wholly unresponsive argument as to why the New York Times should be helping terrorists understand how the U.S. tracks their financial transactions.

Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements.

How condescending can a MSMer be? To pretend to be discussing "elementary stuff" while avoiding the issue is as arrogant as can be imagined.

Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress.

There is no charge --none-- that the program disclosed by the paper last week needed "legislation" to authorize it. And "fully briefed" is a wonderful characterization of what Mr. Keller cannnot possibly claim to know. This is why he avoids interviews. It would be too easy to ask: Who was briefed, Mr. Keller? How do you know that is the extent of the briefing? Did you ask any of the briefed members if they felt fully informed? Is there a problem with leaks on the Hill that obliges the government to adopt special approaches to classified information, approaches which have been in place for decades?

Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.

Without disclosing the officials, we cannot be certain of their rank, their rancor, and their other agendas. We only know they are willing to break the law and their oaths. Mr. Keller's refusal to acknowledge this basic problem is more evidence of the deep dishonesty of his letter. He again asserts a "public interest" that is not his to judge as against the laws passed by Congress, signed by presidents and interpreted by courts. But he doesn't argue why his judgment in this matter trumps that of the government and the people's elected representatives.

Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others — national security experts not serving in the Administration — for their counsel. It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places — New York and the Washington area — that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.

The question of preventing terror is not abstract to any American, but it is much more real to some than to others, and as Sgt. Boggs notes in his letter to Mr. Keller, it is most real to the front line soldiers in Iraq. Mr. Keller does not provide us with the names of the national security experts he consulted. Again, there is no reason to believe him, and his slippery tactics in fact contribute to great distrust.

The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk.

I pause to note that this is the editor of the New York Times. Read those two sentences again.

It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it.

This is what lawyers call "an admission against interest." He's got no "public interest" argument beyond a general "they can't consider what they don't know about."

We weighed most heavily the Administration's concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program.

Another disingenuous response. He doesn't know how the financial community will react, but he can be assured that the terrorist network is working hard on figuring out new ways to transfer money now that they know with certainty and particularity how we were tracing the old transfers. Further, allies across the globe must now know that no matter how legal the level of cooperation extended us in our hunt for terrorists, there is no guarantee of secrecy because the New York Times will publish anything and everything they can discover under the standard articulated here.

By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year's reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would — if the public knew what they were doing — withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before. Members of Congress have proposed to amend the law to put the eavesdropping program on a firm legal footing. And the man who presided over it and defended it was handily confirmed for promotion as the head of the CIA.

Is Mr. Keller aware of how absurd this argument is? The NSA story's harm was not in triggering a debate, but in alerting terrorists to what we were intercepting. That story's impact like this new breach of the national interest doesn't harm anyone if all it leads to is a dust up in the media and a debate in the Congress.

What matters is how the stories affect terrorist behavior. That's the sole and only question, and now we get to Mr. Keller's long delayed response to it.

A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported —indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.

The avalanche of criticism directed at the Times is not half-hearted, and it is almost completely prompted by the assertion of the paper's right to publish anything it wants combined with the possibility of helping the terrorists.


At a minimum, terrorists now familiar with the captured colleagues who were discovered through this program will study what those terrorists did and take pains not to use the same financial systems.


Other terrorists will simply note that what they might have thought secure is not. This is "pretty elemental stuff," I know, but Mr. Keller can either believe terrorists are smart or they are stupid, but not both when it suits him.


If they are stupid, they now have a front page warning. If they are smart, every detail advances their ability to defense our efforts to catch them.

I can appreciate that other conscientious people could have gone through the process I've outlined above and come to a different conclusion. But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues.

I don't believe him, and there is no reason to believe him. The paper has been waging a war on the war and on the Adminsitration for years, so it has no credibility when it comes to arguing its good intentions.


What matters though is the statement that "other conscientious people" could have reached a different decision.


In fact, they did. The Congresses and the presidents of the past have passsed laws about what is classified and who can release it. They didn't include the editor of the New York Times in the group that can make national security decisions. Mr. Keller decided he would risk the national security of the United States and the lives of its citizens. He has done so before and will no doubt do so again.

Thanks for writing.

Regards,
Bill Keller

This incredibly weak response tells us that Bill Keller will not be responding to interview requests, at least not from any critic of the paper's decision. He doesn't have an argument. He doesn't have any defense other than his position as editor of a once great newspaper.

 

[CSM]

And this morning Bill Keller gives us hubris and condescension. Funny, he assumes the readers are just not very bright. What part of the first amendment does he think was given to 'the press'? Those rights were given to the American people, not to any institution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/media/25keller-letter.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

Don't you love his 'common touch' closing?

Oh well, now I understand! Lets just give all classified information about varius programs to the press and let them publish it so the courts et al can determine if it is legal or not.... makes sense to me! After all, the Constitution specifically states that the press is responsible for government oversight....doesn't it?

Sarcasm, folks.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Oh well, now I understand! Lets just give all classified information about varius programs to the press and let them publish it so the courts et al can determine if it is legal or not.... makes sense to me! After all, the Constitution specifically states that the press is responsible for government oversight....doesn't it?

Sarcasm, folks.

The US governemnt is supposed to be one of "We the people...". Are we not then entitled to know what the government does in our name? Are we not entitled to oversight of government actions?

 

[Annie]

The US governemnt is supposed to be one of "We the people...". Are we not then entitled to know what the government does in our name? Are we not entitled to oversight of government actions?

Actually, not 'all'. We are not a democracy, for very good reasons explained in depth in the Federalist Papers and personal notes of the framers. We are a Federal Republic and as such have given up some 'rights' in favor of the public good, including protection of ourselves and fellow citizens.

Otherwise, we can revert to a state of nature.

 

[CSM]

The US governemnt is supposed to be one of "We the people...". Are we not then entitled to know what the government does in our name? Are we not entitled to oversight of government actions?

Not always. I suppose you are in favor of revealing every bit of classified info...I am not. I could go into this big long exaggeration about how you want to let the terrorists know every weakness in our security, but I doubt that is what you mean or want.

I suspect that you are well aware there are good reasons for some classified data being kept secret (radio encryption codes, for example, or operational plans for an Army maneuver and deploymnent schedules for ships and planes). I don't want those published by anyone even if they are to be examined to ensure "there are no offensive words in them" etc.

A subject for debate is why we need such secrecy in the first place but I suspect that would soon degenerate into an argument between idealism and realism.

 

[KarlMarx]

Even if the admin says..."ooh... this propaganda would help us? poof! it's declassified!"?

It's always amazing to see what you guys will tolerate from these people.

I have news for ya .... it's very difficult to declassify information once it becomes classified....

I may be talking out of my hat, but I believe that is true, a work colleague who dealt with classified material once told me that.

 

[CSM]

I have news for ya .... it's very difficult to declassify information once it becomes classified....

I may be talking out of my hat, but I believe that is true, a work colleague who dealt with classified material once told me that.

That depends on the reasons it was classified in the first place, who is the authority, and what level of classification. It is also contingent on the classification of related data. In some cases it is very complex and in others it is very simple. In all cases, there is an authority that can override subordinates... the President has such authority. (and no it doesn't matter which party the President is affiliated with).