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.
Today we have what we were all screaming for just a few short weeks ago:
--A White House Press Secretary with gonads, and with the credentials to stand up to the jackals in the WH Press Corps
--A concerted effort by the entire White House and Treasury Department to fight back and embarrass the New York Times (yes, I know, we all want them INDICTED, not embarrassed, but a month ago we would have givern our left nuts just to see them embarrassed), with a tight and well coordinated message
--A PISSED OFF President and Vice President
--A Treasury Secretary - and a lame duck one at that - taking the gloves off and calling the editor of the New York Times a LIAR.
Don't underestimate the power of the campaign the Adminstration is waging here. What they are getting across to the American people is that the Times is an enemy of the people. If they can do that successfully, it will be almost as big a win as putting Bill Keller in jail, which would not be worth the cost to the country of doing. If it works, Keller will end up like Charles Foster Kane, a discredited, sad, laughingstock. Much better than making him a martyr to free speech!!!
Rosebud
If the leaker gave this information directly to an Al Qaeda bagman, would that violate the Espionage Act?
Assuming it would then why isn't it worse when the New York Times announces it to the world at large?
No rights are absolute and it's time the press learned that they have the same rights and the same consequences as me and the rest of the hoi polloi.
ITS A WINNER!
Attacking the NYTimes and Mainstream Media as treasonous and anti-American is a political touchdown!
AWESOME!
The NEW & IMPROVED Whitehouse Public Relations team is playing to win!
Let them eat dirt while digging through their act...
Send a Federal agent to ask questions, the press charges for lying to a Federal officer...
Call it the LIBBY TREATMENT... Don't prosecute the "crime" go after the lie.
If the Justice Dept. does not follow up with charges, then this incident is precedent setting. We'll see if they put their money where there mouth is. I indeed hope so.
I thought it would be fun to see how the reporters handled that scenario (evil grin)
Tony IS the best!
He wasn't tough at all.
The NYT is on the side of the terrorists. It's that simple. It explains all of their actions.
Tony Snow gets a gold star.
Keller needs to be in jail for 20 years.
Rather than dealing with untested first amendment issues by prosecuting someone for publishing, would it not be better to conduct a vigorous investigation of the person who originally disclosed the information. Based on clearly established precedent, the reporter, editor, publisher and anyone else with knowledge of the crime could be required to testify before a grand jury and publicly in any subsequent trial.
By making these people publicly testify against their source, you would do more to quickly stop this activity than by prosecuting and allowing them to posture as guardians of the peoples right to know through a long drawn out process of first amendment appeals. Before a Grand Jury and as a witness in a criminal trial, they would not have their legions of attorney and public relation experts. They would be alone with no deference to or special exemption for their special status.
If the NY Times thinks they're being so courageous in defying the Administration and publishing something that would be of "interest" to the public, then why wouldn't they publish those cartoons that made the Muslims so angry?
I'd love to see this NY Times Heart Al Qaeda as a bumper sticker all over America as a unified protest.
Go TOny!!!
fwiw, this blogger has the best succinct summary of the pompous, condescending blather issued by NY Times Editor Bill Keller:
http://wizbangblog.com/2006/06/25/letter-from-bill-keller-on-the-timess-banking-records-report.php
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
Keller and Pinch should be put in the same cell that Judith Miller occupied until they reveal the names of the leakers, and the leakers should then be prosecuted. This is at least as important as Valery Plame.
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.