What The Leakers and NYTimes Have Accomplished: Insularity

[Bullypulpit]

After watching Chimpy McPresident have his hissy-fit about the New York Times "leaking" the story about his program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists, I can only conclude one thing. He is less conserned about the leak than having the story reported.

It's a repeat of his reaction to the NY Times story about his little domestic spying program. Then, as now, he was angry and defensive, not because of a leak, but because a story resulted from the leaked information. This administration simply cannot tolerate having its actions exposed to the light of day...Oversight, even as pathetically inadequate as that provided by his lap-dog Congress, is simply intolerable.

The Times was doing its job in reporting the story. Someone inside the Administration leaked the information to a reporter, and the reporter did his job in reporting the story. That's how a free press works. But Chimpy and his supporters went all Orwellian and began calling for prosecution of the reporter, editor and publisher of the NY Times. Why aren't they so anxious to find the leaker? Bill Frist as much as said there was going to be nmo investigation, as he made his rounds of the Sunday talk shows.

Seems it's just business as usual for the Bush Administration...Deny everything...Admit nothing...

 

[CSM]

After watching Chimpy McPresident have his hissy-fit about the New York Times "leaking" the story about his program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists, I can only conclude one thing. He is less conserned about the leak than having the story reported.

It's a repeat of his reaction to the NY Times story about his little domestic spying program. Then, as now, he was angry and defensive, not because of a leak, but because a story resulted from the leaked information. This administration simply cannot tolerate having its actions exposed to the light of day...Oversight, even as pathetically inadequate as that provided by his lap-dog Congress, is simply intolerable.

The Times was doing its job in reporting the story. Someone inside the Administration leaked the information to a reporter, and the reporter did his job in reporting the story. That's how a free press works. But Chimpy and his supporters went all Orwellian and began calling for prosecution of the reporter, editor and publisher of the NY Times. Why aren't they so anxious to find the leaker? Bill Frist as much as said there was going to be nmo investigation, as he made his rounds of the Sunday talk shows.

Seems it's just business as usual for the Bush Administration...Deny everything...Admit nothing...

You are so right Bully. I am a believer in everything you post, soooo....

Can you post the link where the President called for the prosecution of the NYT publisher, editor, and the reporter? You do have that ...right?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Amazing...simply amazing. The NYT may have printed the truth but they also compromised the the security of this nation. If you and others like you fail to see that, then you really are blind. Your lame attempt to bring the troops into this shows just how far you are willing to stretch the bounds of reality to fit your agenda.

At which point does the national security argument fall apart? Is it when we lose the ability to read materials of our choosing? Is it when we can no longer visit our national monuments for fear of terrorism? Is it when we can no longer access maps of cities for fear that terrorists may use them to plan attacks? Is it ok when the government installs cameras that watch you 24/7?

I realize that this is the slippery slope argument, but I'm just wondering, at which point will you realize that national security is the ultimate scapegoat for stripping essential liberties. Yes, privacy is an essential liberty.

 

[CSM]

At which point does the national security argument fall apart? Is it when we lose the ability to read materials of our choosing? Is it when we can no longer visit our national monuments for fear of terrorism? Is it when we can no longer access maps of cities for fear that terrorists may use them to plan attacks? Is it ok when the government installs cameras that watch you 24/7?

I realize that this is the slippery slope argument, but I'm just wondering, at which point will you realize that national security is the ultimate scapegoat for stripping essential liberties. Yes, privacy is an essential liberty.

At what point do you NOT want national security? At what point does individual rights become the downfall of democracy? Do you sacrifice your individual rights when the invading enemy knocks on your door or sometime before he reaches our shores? Is privacy more essential than the right to life (not talking abortion here)? SHould no one be investigated/prosecuted for criminal acts because they were merely exercising their individual right to privacy?

Yes, privacy is indeed an essential liberty. At what point does that argument fall apart as a rationalization for criminal/antisocial or even terrorism?

That my friend, is indeed the crux of the matter!

 

[Annie]

I pretty much agree with what follows. There are plenty of leaks and blame for both the NY Times, the leakers, and Keller in particular with his asinine editorial letter today:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/06/bill_keller_res.html

Bill Keller Responds

Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, addresses their controversial decision to declare war on the United States publish information about a formerly secret program monitoring international funds transfers.

Wizbang provides the condensed version:

Dear Reader:

1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.

2) We have every reason to believe it was effective at catching terrorists.

3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.

Bill Keller
​

The longer version is simply a longer insult to the intelligence of their critics. Hugh Hewitt puts the full letter through the mill, but let me extract a few choice offerings from Mr. Keller:

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.
​

In other words - Relax, dear Times Reader - we are getting flack from a bunch of right-wing cranks, but proper libs understand that the Times is simply contributing to the public debate.

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.​

Yes, but we also passed laws regarding the disclosure of classified information, and it is entirely possible that these leaks (although presumably not the publication thereof) are criminal. Does that aspect of the decisions made by We the People also count for anything in TimesWorld?

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.
​

Tell me again whether there are any checks at all on this "power that has been given us". Where is the accountability at the Times - can We the People un-elect Bill Keller? How can we make him stop?

Or, if there is no accountability, is that really how we want to run our democracy? Don't We the People have the right to decide that some national security secrets need to be kept secret? Or can any bureaucrat with an agenda overrule his elected superiors?

Let me re-phrase that - can any bureaucrat with an agenda with which the Times is comfortable overrule his elected superiors on national security issues?

FROM THE COMMENTS:

[Keller] mentions that this was an "agonizing" decision, but doesn't do the thing he is forever demanding of other public figures with power- he doesn't touch on what responsibility he will hold if he is wrong. He does't say what made it agonizing. Does he worry he made the wrong choice, and that people might die because of it?

He doesn't even bother to say how he will ever evaluate his own actions. What will tug at the corners of his brain and tell him maybe he made the wrong choice to publish this information?​

Good point - just what is the feedback loop here? My guess is that Keller keeps score by counting how many times he is lauded for his courage at cocktail parties in the Hamptons, but maybe it is not that scientific.

Posted by Tom Maguire on June 25, 2006

 

[PsuedoGhost]

At what point do you NOT want national security? At what point does individual rights become the downfall of democracy? Do you sacrifice your individual rights when the invading enemy knocks on your door or sometime before he reaches our shores? Is privacy more essential than the right to life (not talking abortion here)? SHould no one be investigated/prosecuted for criminal acts because they were merely exercising their individual right to privacy?

Paraphrased: I want a police state, wherein we are totally secure, but lack all the freedoms that we are supposedly spreading to the oppressed people around the world. The worst enemy for a democracy is the enemy within. Not the liberals or the conservatives, but those who would horde power in order to ensure "security." "Security" is a veiled buzzword used to lull the nonthinking populace into believing that the loss of freedoms is perfectly acceptable. But let's understand one thing perfectly clear. No matter what we do, we can never completely remove the risk that we will be attacked. We should do what is within reason to prevent attack, but not at the cost of our daily lifestyle.

Yes, privacy is indeed an essential liberty. At what point does that argument fall apart as a rationalization for criminal/antisocial or even terrorism?

That my friend, is indeed the crux of the matter!

Not all criminals are private, not all private people are antisocial, not all antisocial people are terrorists, not all antisocial people are criminals... Yet under your reasoning we should treat them with suspicion?

But after all, if you're innocent you should having nothing to hide right? The same argument used against the innocent people who were brought to trial before McCarthy in the 50s. The same argument that was used at the witch trials. The same argument that was used to promote Naziism. How can you not see this?

Who cares if we win the war on terrorism, if we have no freedoms at home, because then the terrorists HAVE WON.

 

[Gunny]

Paraphrased: I want a police state, wherein we are totally secure, but lack all the freedoms that we are supposedly spreading to the oppressed people around the world. The worst enemy for a democracy is the enemy within. Not the liberals or the conservatives, but those who would horde power in order to ensure "security." "Security" is a veiled buzzword used to lull the nonthinking populace into believing that the loss of freedoms is perfectly acceptable. But let's understand one thing perfectly clear. No matter what we do, we can never completely remove the risk that we will be attacked. We should do what is within reason to prevent attack, but not at the cost of our daily lifestyle.




Not all criminals are private, not all private people are antisocial, not all antisocial people are terrorists, not all antisocial people are criminals... Yet under your reasoning we should treat them with suspicion?

But after all, if you're innocent you should having nothing to hide right? The same argument used against the innocent people who were brought to trial before McCarthy in the 50s. The same argument that was used at the witch trials. The same argument that was used to promote Naziism. How can you not see this?

Who cares if we win the war on terrorism, if we have no freedoms at home, because then the terrorists HAVE WON.

Your argument is a bit backwards. If the Nation no longer exists because we were looking the other way, then our freedoms no longer exist as well.

Relinquishing some freedom to maintain the rest seems a lot more intelligent than losing them all.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Your argument is a bit backwards. If the Nation no longer exists because we were looking the other way, then our freedoms no longer exist as well.

Relinquishing some freedom to maintain the rest seems a lot more intelligent than losing them all.

No. If terrorists cause a nation to have to change their way of life, and their code of laws dramatically, then whether or not the terrorists actually succeed in destroying the nation is irrelevant. They have already won. Terrorists dont need to destroy the United States entirely to win the "war" on terror, they only need to make us a bit more on edge, and ready to give up our freedoms in order to combat a threat that in reality cannot be stopped. We will be struck again, its just a matter of time.

 

[Avatar4321]

The admin had no problem with leaks used to try to hurt someone who came out against it's policies and who told that the yellowcake story was a lie.

The admin also had no problem with using Judy Miller, at that same NY Times, to leak self-serving information prior to our entry into Iraq.

A bit hypocritical to complain when it doesn't like the info that's released, I think.

The problem is the yellowcake wasnt a lie. Also, how do you leak the identity of someone who is 1)Not undercover 2)is already known by the media.

Do you know who leaked Valerie Plames name? Her husband.

We should demanding Subpeonas and find this leak and prosecute them. When National Security is at risk, leaks can be deadly.

 

[Avatar4321]

This is little more than GOP political opportunism. The GOP will take any opportunity to take a swipe at the New York Times because they hate it. The New York Times printed the truth and the GOP hates it because it makes the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress look bad heading into election season. The information didn't compromise the war effort. It may piss some troops off, but so what? Why should the adminstration be allowed to lie to people who are dying for our country?

acludem

Since when did the NYT start printing the truth?

 

[Hobbit]

No. If terrorists cause a nation to have to change their way of life, and their code of laws dramatically, then whether or not the terrorists actually succeed in destroying the nation is irrelevant. They have already won. Terrorists dont need to destroy the United States entirely to win the "war" on terror, they only need to make us a bit more on edge, and ready to give up our freedoms in order to combat a threat that in reality cannot be stopped. We will be struck again, its just a matter of time.

You're missing the crux of the matter. If the U.S. government is cross-checking a bank database, which is public information, with a terrorist watchlist, also mostly public information (the rest is classified, which the government, by definition, is allowed to know), to look for shady transactions going to terrorist groups, how have your rights been violated? The police can look at your bank records with a fine-toothed comb using nothing but a subpoena and your bank doesn't even have to tell you about it (they're allowed to, but not required to).

 

[CrimsonWhite]

After watching Chimpy McPresident have his hissy-fit about the New York Times "leaking" the story about his program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists, I can only conclude one thing. He is less conserned about the leak than having the story reported.

It's a repeat of his reaction to the NY Times story about his little domestic spying program. Then, as now, he was angry and defensive, not because of a leak, but because a story resulted from the leaked information. This administration simply cannot tolerate having its actions exposed to the light of day...Oversight, even as pathetically inadequate as that provided by his lap-dog Congress, is simply intolerable.

The Times was doing its job in reporting the story. Someone inside the Administration leaked the information to a reporter, and the reporter did his job in reporting the story. That's how a free press works. But Chimpy and his supporters went all Orwellian and began calling for prosecution of the reporter, editor and publisher of the NY Times. Why aren't they so anxious to find the leaker? Bill Frist as much as said there was going to be nmo investigation, as he made his rounds of the Sunday talk shows.

Seems it's just business as usual for the Bush Administration...Deny everything...Admit nothing...

Bully hit the nail directly on the head. This program shouldn't need to be secret. The govt. can get a subpeona to view anyones financial records already. The only thing that i can figure out the program does is streamline the process. The President is pissed that the thing was supposed to be secret and reporters found out about and did their job. I'm all for the press acting responsibly, but since when does the govt. have a say in what the press reports. My copy of the Constitution says it can't.

 

[Hobbit]

Bully hit the nail directly on the head. This program shouldn't need to be secret. The govt. can get a subpeona to view anyones financial records already. The only thing that i can figure out the program does is streamline the process. The President is pissed that the thing was supposed to be secret and reporters found out about and did their job. I'm all for the press acting responsibly, but since when does the govt. have a say in what the press reports. My copy of the Constitution says it can't.

Maybe not, but my copy of the United States Federal Statutes concerning classified information is quite clear that knowing disclosure of classified information is illegaly and the Supreme Court ruled that it is not Constitutionally protected speech.

As for why the program was secret, I'd say that a lot of terrorists probably thought we had no way of getting at their bank records or that our odds of finding something useful were slim. They know better now, thanks to the NYT, and you can bet they'll either find a different way to transfer funds or a better way to hide what they're doing, making the government's job (one of the few it is actually granted by the Constitution) much harder. Still, it's irrellevant. The U.S. government saw fit to declare it classified. As such, it's illegal to share this information with unauthorized personnel, and that's really all that matters.

 

[CSM]

Paraphrased: I want a police state, wherein we are totally secure, but lack all the freedoms that we are supposedly spreading to the oppressed people around the world. Damn, I said all that?The worst enemy for a democracy is the enemy within. I don't know about the degree but they are certainly an enemy Not the liberals or the conservatives, but those who would horde power in order to ensure "security." I agree there are those who would and do abuse their power and use many rationalizations to do so (including security)."Security" is a veiled buzzword used to lull the nonthinking populace into believing that the loss of freedoms is perfectly acceptable. It is obvious then that you believe this country does not need "security". If I extrapolate, you then would agree that we need NO police, military or any other law enforcement or investigative services nor do we need to provide for classified information and the handling of such.But let's understand one thing perfectly clear. No matter what we do, we can never completely remove the risk that we will be attacked. We should do what is within reason to prevent attack, but not at the cost of our daily lifestyle. And does "witihin reason" include surrendering some individual freedoms? If not, how do you propose to provide that which will help provide security reasonably? "The cost of our daily lifestyle"???? What I interpret that statement as saying is "protect me, but don't interfere with anything I want to do, anything I believe in, or anything I disagree with"


Not all criminals are private... Most are; I have yet to see a criminal take an ad in any newspaper and tell the public of their plans to commit robbery, rape or murder...not all private people are antisocial... True enough but some are...not all antisocial people are terrorists, Of course not, but all terrorists are antisocial and I am not talking about being "standoffish"...not all antisocial people are criminals... Yet under your reasoning we should treat them with suspicion? Big stretch there, bubba...I never said that. You are, however, having one heck of an argument with yourself.

But after all, if you're innocent you should having nothing to hide right? True. The same argument used against the innocent people who were brought to trial before McCarthy in the 50s. That was certainly one of them. The same argument that was used at the witch trials. I don't know I wasn't around during the witch trials and haven't seen any transcripts of them...I guess you have though. The same argument that was used to promote Naziism. Really? Got any copies of documents where that particualr statement was used or links to such? How can you not see this? Oh, I am well aware of the necessity of safeguarding individual freedoms and the tyranny of big government. That does not mean I advocate no government at all.
Who cares if we win the war on terrorism, if we have no freedoms at home, because then the terrorists HAVE WON. And if we lose this war to the terrorists, we will have no freedoms at home.

Your last statement is the most telling. It appears that as long as terrorism is not affecting you personally then all is well and you have no need to sacrifice ANYTHING. As long as your daily lifestyle continues uninterrupted, then there is no need for security, secret programs, police or anything else. Life is good in Smallville!

 

[CSM]

Bully hit the nail directly on the head. This program shouldn't need to be secret. The govt. can get a subpeona to view anyones financial records already. The only thing that i can figure out the program does is streamline the process. The President is pissed that the thing was supposed to be secret and reporters found out about and did their job. I'm all for the press acting responsibly, but since when does the govt. have a say in what the press reports. My copy of the Constitution says it can't.

One flaw in your argument here...subpeona of financial records hold little weight over a company in Europe....

As has already been stated, the press (in this case the NYT) has the right to to print and they chose to exercise that right. Many of us think that was irresponsible and it makes us angry that the press (NYT) thinks that the safety of the citizens of this country are of less importance than their right to print.

 

[Annie]

One flaw in your argument here...subpeona of financial records hold little weight over a company in Europe....

As has already been stated, the press (in this case the NYT) has the right to to print and they chose to exercise that right. Many of us think that was irresponsible and it makes us angry that the press (NYT) thinks that the safety of the citizens of this country are of less importance than their right to print.

Maybe, maybe not:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/385jqmfk.asp

...The attorney general did not mention the 1917 Espionage Act or any other specific law. But if the editors of the paper were to take a look at the U.S. Criminal Code, they would find that they have run afoul not of the Espionage Act but of another law entirely: Section 798 of Title 18, the so-called Comint statute.

Unambiguously taking within its reach the publication of the NSA terrorist surveillance story (though arguably not the Times's more recent terrorist banking story), Section 798 reads, in part:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information . . . concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both [emphasis added]...​

 

[CSM]

Maybe, maybe not:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/385jqmfk.asp

Possibly that law applies but I think it is a long stretch in this most recent case.

 

[Annie]

Possibly that law applies but I think it is a long stretch in this most recent case.

Perhaps, though it looks pretty clear and Keller admits that he was warned about it.

If the administration once again fails to act, they are making a terrible blunder, IMO.

 

[CSM]

Perhaps, though it looks pretty clear and Keller admits that he was warned about it.

If the administration once again fails to act, they are making a terrible blunder, IMO.

I agree. My concern is that until the leak is found, it does not matter what media gets prosecuted. There is a serious problem within whatever organization is responsible for the safeguarding of that material. Don't get me wrong, I have zero respect for the media, but I am far more concerned that someone treats national secrets so lightly and without regard for the consequences of their actions.

 

[Annie]

I agree. My concern is that until the leak is found, it does not matter what media gets prosecuted. There is a serious problem within whatever organization is responsible for the safeguarding of that material. Don't get me wrong, I have zero respect for the media, but I am far more concerned that someone treats national secrets so lightly and without regard for the consequences of their actions.

That's why I think the admin should move to get the reporters into court; jail them if they don't release their sources, they claim 20; then go after both leakers and the NY Times.