Posted on 06/26/2006 5:24:11 PM PDT by wagglebee
NEW YORK Over the weekend, Vice President Cheney stated that The New York Times' scoop (shared with the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal) on bank records surveillance offended him. A leading Republican called for a criminal probe. President Bush today termed it "disgraceful." The National Review asked the White House to revoke the newspaper's press credentials.
Now Press Secretary Tony Snow has aimed another volley across the bow of The New York Times, while suggesting that First Amendment rights would still be respected.
Here is the relevant portion of today's press briefing.
*
SNOW: With that kind of demonstrated efficacy, the question is why on earth make the editorial decision that this program no longer should be effective by exposing it? And that, I think, is the kind of thing that has the President concerned. But I'm going to defer any question about, sort of, legal dispensations until later.
Q He referred to "the" newspaper, "a" newspaper -- is he talking about one newspaper, in particular, or is talking about the three newspapers?
SNOW: Well, I’ll tell you what happened is the New York Times clearly was in the lead on this one. It was ahead. And as it was getting ready to publish, other newspapers made inquiries and we asked questions.
But this is one where the New York Times clearly was leading and everybody waited until it posted its piece online to do their own publications.
Q: We’re told the vice president’s going to make similar comments at his appearance today. With the president and the vice president in essence going after the New York Times today, are they trying to create a chilling effect on media outlets that might…
SNOW: I don’t think so. No, I don’t think so. It’s a very good question, though. If the New York Times decides that it is going to try to assume responsibility for determining which classified secrets remain classified and which don’t, it ought to accept some of the obligations of that responsibility. It ought to be able to take the heat as well.
So the administration certainly is going to lay out its concerns and what it may mean for the safety of the American people and the integrity of the process of developing intelligence that can permit us to track down terrorists and prevent them from killing again.
That’s what this is all about. It’s about what we can do in a time of war.
Traditionally in this country in a time of war members of the press have acknowledged that the commander in chief, in the exercise of his powers, sometimes has to do things secretly in order to protect the public. This is a highly unusual departure. It’s interesting; the Times talking about this program having been a departure from previous banking efforts. This is also a departure from the longstanding traditions here in the United States.
So it’s not designed to have a chilling effect. I think if the New York Times wants a spirited debate about it, it’s got it.
But certainly nobody is going to deny First Amendment rights. But the New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public’s right to know in some cases might override somebody’s right to live, and whether in fact the publications of these could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans....
In response, one of the things Bill Keller said is, "It is not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective." Well, it is your job to exercise editorial judgment. All of us got into this business -- I've been in journalism 27 years -- when I got into the business, one of the things that everybody learns is you have to exercise editorial judgment. I daresay many people in this room have been faced with difficult decisions in their careers, and probably all of us have had stories where we killed them because there was somebody's own privacy right or interest involved.
So you simply cannot say, we got this story, we're going to publish it, but we don't have to worry about whether it's legal or effective. In this case, I think it does bear on the debate. * Q Tony, you said a moment ago that there should be a spirited debate over the decision to publish the details on the program. Obviously, outside the walls of the White House you have members of Congress calling for indictments, you have political allies at the White House calling reporters "traitors," and basically says it's committing treason just by publishing it. Do you share those feelings? And, if so, as a former journalist, as you cited, are you comfortable with that kind of rhetoric about the media?
SNOW: You know, I'm not going to engage in name-calling from here. And the other thing is, in terms of the legal issues, there really is a process for doing it. What you have is legal authorities taking a look at the law. I understand the passions on it, and that, obviously, motivates some of what has been said in The Times.
Look, this is an issue that needs to be studied carefully, but, ultimately, also -- and I think you're right, Peter -- people have got to step back and take a careful look -- The New York Times, consumers of news, everybody -- to figure out in a time of war what is the best way to proceed so that you can maintain the integrity of intelligence information that may be useful in saving American lives and defeating -- especially in the case of al Qaeda, a very different kind of enemy; it is dispersed, it is inchoate, it operates in cells rather than large-standing armies, and therefore requires much more sophisticated and varied kinds of intelligence than any enemy we've ever faced before.
So how do journalists discharge their obligations responsibly, and how does the nation proceed effectively in fighting a war on terror? Those are all issues we're going to have to debate.
Neat graphics Seadog!
Implicates too many 1A questions. I think you're right.
I do think they should go after the leakers. After all, those folks have ALL been informed about what is classified and how it is to be handled. The law describes their behavior as criminal, so they should be found out and prosecuted.
Agree whole-heartedly
R O T F L M A O !!
Ping.
Good graphic!
I can't look at David Gregory on NBC or at pressers w/o mentally picturing him in the pink dress.
Do you have an outfit for "Pinch" from NYT?
Nothing for "Pinch" - yet
I'll have to talk to the art department on "Pinch"
I haven't even saved a single picture of him yet!! Headhunters.Inc.
There are a few posted on threads
But Pinch is not as recognizable to most people as David Gregory
Gregory is a camera hog
Yes, I saw some of Pinch yesterday but didn't save them.
BTTT
Tony Snow is going to be on "The O'Reilly Factor" talking about this tonight, June 28. Should be interesting. Billy O' is fuming.
The one on the right looks like a "Girlie Man".
If the DOJ decides to go after the leakers, it is my opinion that the DOJ needs to go far enough to make the Times a lot more than nervous.
Is it a chilling effect I am talking about here? Naw, thinking about that old phrase though..."Just wait til your father gets home." Sometimes you got a good haul behind the wood shed and sometimes it was a good talking too. Either way you had your responsiblity illuminated for you.
What is driving me crazy is the arrogance the New Jerk Times is flaunting in our faces. That kind of arrogance, given the subject matter, is like yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre.
PS. All these outstanding potential posters being put up in front of the Times would be great.
The NYT should be shut down for aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war and the editors, owners, and reporters responsible for the leaks should be put on trial for high treason and given the appropriate punishment
masterful.
Thanks for the ping!
Amen, Tony!!
Your suggestion is eminently logical, morally and ethically proper, and Constitutionally sound. Therefore, it doesn't stand a chance of being followed...
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.