Posted on 01/02/2006 12:27:47 PM PST by Kaslin
New York Times executives are "stonewalling" on questions about the paper's decision to publish top secret information about the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance operations against terrorists, the paper's public editor charged on Sunday.
"The New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate," public editor Byron Calame wrote in a New Years Day column.
In its initial report on Dec. 16, Times said that editors held the story at the request of the White House, then edited out some - but not all - of the information that Bush administration officials warned would compromise national security.
But a frustrated-sounding Calame said that explanation wasn't good enough, adding: "I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency."
"For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making," he lamented.
Three days after the Times began publishing the national security secrets, Calame says he emailed a list of 28 questions to executive editor Bill Keller, who "promptly declined to respond to them."
He then sent the same questions to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who also declined to respond. "They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future," Calame said.
He accused the two top Times officials of "stonewalling," adding, "The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts."
I hope Byron Calame has his resume updated. ;-)
Under the law, the newspaper was required to escalate the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee and then to cork it.
Treason applies. There is no backdoor for "woefully inadequate" explanations. Hope that they still offer jumpsuits with stripes.
"Stonewalling" = Criminal Obstruction of Justice
Well,,,, I read the whole Calame report earlier, and it seemed to me that he didn't actually have too much of a problem with the papers disclosing of the top-secret info. I think that some of the more critical sounding items were cherry-picked out of his article. He didn't seem that p-o'd too me!
Looks like laws were broken to me, very serious laws in fact.
And now the CYA campaign beguins.
Accuse them of treason and go after them like there is no tomorrow. Then we'll see how much stonewalling they will do. Freedom of the press does not begin to allow disobeying the law.
The NYT editorial department needs to be frog-marched down to the Senate Intelligence Committee for a little show and tell. :^)
I'm hoping that the nyt has stepped in so deep this time, that there will be no way out except for lengthy jail sentences for treason.
Isn't it the Justice Department that is launching the investigation?
What if we told them that chuckie schumer wanted them to cooperate, would they have a change of heart?
As for the source of the story...the Justice Dept. nedds to start leaning on them...hard.
If you don't wanna get mad, don't go here! Sheesh!
http://progressive.org/mag_wx010206
What part of "no attacks in four years" don't these morons understand?
But.......but........what about the "people's right to know" ?
Unless the GOP changes its usual weak-kneed behavior, they're going to get away with it, too.
I caught two snippets on C-SPAN this AM (I hardly ever watch C-SPAN), and in both instances the guests were flat out stating Bush violated the law.
The Republicans had better develop some cajones, or the libs will make this another Watergate.
The "boy" Senator? Na. The Times only works for the 'girl" Senator
That did not Piss me of at all. Those were the words of a 40 YO Red Diaper Baby with no facts to back up his rant.
Let the NYT twist slowly in the wind.
When you have commited a crime, that is your constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.