Posted on 06/29/2006 1:54:16 PM PDT by veronica
Dear Bill Keller:
Remember me? We met in the elevator here at The Oregonian recently. Your decision to expose a secret program to track terrorist funding got me to thinking I had better write and apologize. I don't think I was sufficiently deferential on our brief ride together. I treated you like the executive editor of The New York Times who used to work for The Oregonian. I had no idea I was riding with the man who decides what classified programs will be made public during a war on terror. I had no idea the American people had elected you president and commander in chief.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. What's that they say -- sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin? I'm angry, Bill.
I get angry when a few unauthorized individuals take it upon themselves to undermine an anti-terror program that even your own paper deems legal and successful. I get angry when the same people decide to blow the lid on a secret program designed to keep Islamic terrorists from killing Americans en masse.
"The disclosure of this program," President Bush said Monday, "is disgraceful."
Strong words, but not strong enough, Bill.
Your decision was contemptible, but your Sunday letter explaining the Times' decision only undermined your case for disclosure.
"It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press . . .," you wrote. "[T]he people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy. . . . 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."
Too true, but the issue here is your judgment. It would be one thing if you ran this story because the program was illegal, abusive or feckless. Yet your paper established nothing of the kind. In the end, your patronizing and lame letter offered only press-convention bromides ("a matter of public interest").
"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," you write, after providing a tutorial on how the government only wants the press to publish the official line and the press believes "citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news."
But this is a false and self-serving choice. The issue is your decision to publish classified information that can only aid our enemies. The founders didn't give the media or unnamed sources a license to expose secret national security operations in wartime. They set up a Congress to pass laws against disclosing state secrets and an executive branch to conduct secret operations so the new nation could actually defend itself from enemies, foreign and domestic.
Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff -- but it's the kind of elementary stuff that can get lost in the heat of strong disagreements. And get more people killed in the United States or Iraq.
Not to worry, you tell us, terrorists already know we track their funding, and disclosure won't undercut the program. (Contradictory claims, but what the heck.) You at the Times know better. You know better than government officials who said disclosing the program's methods and means would jeopardize a successful enterprise. You know better than the 9/11 Commission chairmen who urged you not to run the story. Better than Republican and Democratic lawmakers who were briefed on the program. Better than the Supreme Court, which has held since 1976 that bank records are not constitutionally protected. Better than Congress, which established the administrative subpoenas used in this program.
Maybe you do. But whether you do or not, there's no accountability. If you're wrong and we fail to stop a terror plot and people die because of your story, who's going to know, much less hold you accountable? No, the government will be blamed -- oh, happy day, maybe Bush's White House! -- for not connecting dots or crippling terror networks. The Times might even run the kind of editorial it ran on Sept. 24, 2001. Remember? The one that said "much more is needed" to track terror loot, including "greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities"?
Keep up the good work -- for al-Qaida.
You are darn right they didn't. They would all spin in their graves could they see what is happening in this country!
10 years ago they didn't bother to have a token conservative.
30 years ago the Oregon Democratic party posted of 65+% of registered voters. Today they are neck and neck with Republicans in the low 30's.
Oregon is trending right.
Hanging was good enough for past traitors. Since this government is too chickens--- to charge him, let what goes around, come around.
Who died and left you president of the United States? (THE OREGONIAN TO THE NYT)
My father was in a military unit in WWII (23rd Headquarters Special Troops), the existence of which was classified until 1996.
Hey, I applaud you for sticking your head out to be flamed, especially that you are indeed on our side, not theirs. I think you are defending the wrong point here. Its not so much a discussion how secret that bank monitoring is ( I can grant you all the points there), but as long as the details remain secret, NYT motivation of publishing the secret material was to stick it to that hated Bush.
Freedom of the press does not mean that governments should have no secrets. Yes a normal inclination of government is to make everything secret. And there are watchdog groups fighting for declassification of documents. That is how a boring democracy works. If we start bypassing democracy only because we hate Clinton or Bush, we are killing all that differs us from so many failed states.
I can bet all money in the world, that NYT editors would not publish similar information if President Gore, Clinton or Kelly asked them not to do it. Hate is their real motivation, everything else is just a smart wordsmithing.
"Oregon is trending right."
You may be correct, however the Republicans haven't gotten a candidate elected Governor since Vic Ateyah in the early 80's. The Portland metro area has a firm grip on statewide offices due to the numbers involved.
The R's may get a governor this year but he isn't exactly what I would call a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. That said my general rule is any Republican is better than the best Democrat.
The Portland Metro area has a firm grip on stealing elections due to vote by mail.
Overturn vote by mail and their control will swirl down into the sewer.
It's only a matter of time before they won't even have the numbers to cheat their way to winning.
Just like Floriduh.
Thanks for the data re 66% of Americans support prosecuting the mediots for leaks that help terrorists.
Makes one wonder what a great country we would have if that constant 35% stopped wasting Oxygen or moved to Europe.
You are a heck of a lot more optimistic about Oregon politics than I am. The D's were consistently winning statewide elections long before mail-in ballots. Of course the in-fighting among the states conservatives has not helped.
bump.
"Classified information is the "intellectual property" of the US Government, and anyone who receives it without proper licensing or authority, is in receipt of stolen/abused property.
It is a violation of property rights for it then to be used. It is to be returned to its owner. "
Great analogy!
Would the NYTimes dare to publish unauthorized excerpts from a copyrighted book? No. They give less respect to the US Govt than to a mere author.
No doubt!
Nixon was wrong, treason should always be punishable by death.
Not at all. Reinhard is the token conservative at the Fishwrap. He spoke at a meeting I attended a few years ago, and said he feels more than a bit outnumbered there . . .
One of the amusing things about the Oregonian is the letters page, which is almost all leftist in content. I think most conservatives have quit taking the paper, or use it to housetrain their puppies.
That's the thing about the left. They always want to elevate ideology over democratic process.
just goes to show you what a pulitzer prize is worth, and who they're always handed to...lol
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.