Who died and left you president of the United States? (NYT)

Oregonian ^ | 6-29-06 | David Reinhard, Associate Editor

[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.

[SE Mom]

This is great!

Thanks for posting.

[ChuckHam]

I'll make it simple for ya. Verifying sources or methods severely hampers or renders them ineffective. Something can be generally known, but the bad guys will always have doubts about it until you verify just how effective it is or how you do it. Once that happens the bad guys avoid it totally. It's generally known that the bad guys use encryption for their emails. They might think 1024 bit encryption takes months or even years to crack, and by then the deed they are planning is done. Let's say the NYT says we can crack 1024 bit encryption in hours....think the bad guys will use it anymore?

[Socratic]

I've never even heard of that group.

And yet you opine that this program was common knowledge and that no damage was done. FR is a great place to meet uncommon minds - those of great perspicacity and those such as you.

[MadAnthony1776]

This is another example of someone's disdain for the current president standing in the way of using sound judgement. If President Clinton had run this program the NYT would never have run this story. If there is another terrorist attack as a result of this, I'd bet the NYT would criticize President Bush for not doing enough to fight terrorism even though they've leaked every weapon this administration has tried to use in this fight. This latest story borders on treason. The NYT is one of the most unpatriotic enterprises in this country. A more fitting name for their paper would be the Al-Jazeera Times. I'd give this moron a choice, either stand trial for treason in time of war which carries the death penalty or he can leave the country and live in the middle east and see how long he can keep his head on his shoulders. IMO the NYT has ceased to be a legitimate source for news. Even the National Enquirer has more class than this paper.

[Mia T]

excellent! thanx.

 

"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

James Madison

 

When the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will....

READ MORE

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)
by Mia T, 6.27.06

PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON
WHY WE MUST PROSECUTE THE NEW YORK TIMES
by Mia T, 06.26.06

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
by Mia T, December 29, 2005

 

 

[combat_boots]

"They should be arrested and imprisoned under the most unpleasant circumstances possible on charges of espionage."

I vote some backwater prison in Somalia. That, or drop them in NW Pakistan or al Anbar province with 3 days rations. On foot.

[danmar]

I'm not naive enough to believe something is truly "secret" simply because it is classified.

Classified information is sensitive information to which access is restricted by law or regulation to particular classes of people. A formal security clearance is required to handle classified documents or access classified data. The clearance process requires a satisfactory background investigation. There are typically several levels of sensitivity, with differing clearance requirements. This sort of hierarchical system of secrecy is used by virtually every national government. The act of assigning the level of sensitivity to data is called data classification.

Very naive statement your part I might add!

[GOPJ]

Great post.

[ChuckHam]

You are a POS. I won't tell you what that means even though it is most people know what it means.

[madison10]

I have an open mind, but I'm not naive enough to believe something is truly "secret" simply because it is classified.

The problem hasn't been so much that the terrorists have discovered "new" information. Most likely they suspected what was going on. The issue is that certain "human rights" groups are encouraging financial institutions in many countries to not inform the U.S. of terrorist activities as they were doing previously.

The outside pressure on the banks will prevent us from obtaining info we need.

BTW, I see someone already explained this to you, but you ignored them. Guess there's no accounting for a lack of intelligence.

[steveyp]

More editors need to do this. I am blaming my local print media for the action of the nyt.

Tough.

[LibertarianInExile]

"For six years there have been some who have been disappointed he did not arrest and toss in jail Bill and Hilary Clinton. Can you imagine what would have occurred in this nation if he had done so (assuming he had rock solid evidence of guilt, it would have been a dangerous path to travel)."

You make out anyone who cannot understand the failure to charge the Times with a violation of statute law to be some sort of nutjob. This is nothing like tossing Billary into the clink on some minor trumped-up charge. The violation is clearcut, the program was classified and revealed, and this is a substantial intrusion on American intelligence gathering. The Times should be charged under law. You make it seem as if doing so is just some matter of discretion. But to ignoring your oath as President to defend the Constitution and United States of America from enemies foreign and domestic is not a discretionary thing, especially when you are reportedly 'furious' about the publication and its results. This is like the Times bitching about the Wilson 'leak' in reverse. Bush and his staff bumped the hornets' nest, because they thought only the other guy was gonna get stung, but now, everyone wants to know why if the President's so furious he's not doing something about by prosecuting these weasels.

[CIB-173RDABN]

No, I am saying we elect a person to use their judgment. At this point in time we do not know everything the President knows, or what his intentions are.

My point remains that there is a constant drumbeat against this President from both the left and right, for every action he may take, or every action he may not take.

It is a judgment call, and as I do not have the facts, I will give the President the benefit of doubt, and will support him over either political extreme.

But if you are unhappy with the President then by all means support the Democrats position. Maybe if you are really lucky he will be impeached, and that will satisfy your lust for perfection.

[Grampa Dave]

Wow. This really has to hurt when the liberal Oregonian has this as an editorial.

Excellent point. We never elected any of these left wing haters of America w/the NY Slimes as president. They are trying again to electronically coup our President.

[mewzilla]

Wow.

Amen, Mr. Reinhard.

[Grampa Dave]

[Grampa Dave]

[mewzilla]

And the NYT's advertisers for aiding and abetting...

[Windsong]

and yet if Kerry were in office and the NYT did this, you'd be praising them.