Thanks to the Drudge Report for uncovering the fact that James Risen, the author of today’s New York Times article on spying by the NSA, is also the author of the above-pictured book, which will be published next month.
I suppose this means there will be a series of follow-on articles between now and the publication date.
Full disclosure? Not for the New York Times, that denizen of virtue.
I agree that the times should have disclosed the Riesen’s upcoming book. However, the article also notes that it was going to be published a year ago but was delayed after the White House expressed concern that it might jeopardize certain ongoing intelligence operations. The NYT held off and published only a year after as agreed with the White House.
Additionally, this is a very important issue that we need to discuss and debate. Many officials apparently have trouble with the manner in which the program has been conducted, including one of the judges that presides over the secret court that oversees other such operations (but not this one as it was kept out of his purview). In a republic, to safeguard our rights and freedoms, debates on this issues is necessary, otherwise in trying to secure the country against terrorism we could end up losing that which we are trying to protect, our freedoms and way of life. There is nothing wrong with questioning our officials and the policies implemented in our name to protect us, that is what we do in a democracy, if we didn’t we would be an authoritarian state. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so is the road to dictatorships.
Additionally, the paper also stated that “Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.”
Furthermore, the paper provides context to the report and the program used by the government.
“The eavesdropping program grew out of concerns after the Sept. 11 attacks that the nation’s intelligence agencies were not poised to deal effectively with the new threat of Al Qaeda and that they were handcuffed by legal and bureaucratic restrictions better suited to peacetime than war, according to officials.”
That is an important part of why we need to debate it. After 9/11 the government was right to do certain things, including use this program to ensure that no terrorist cells were active within the US, however, now that we’ve had time to reflect and learn more about the operation of al Qaeda we can more fully see what programs are working, which are not, which are too intrusive (unecessarily). It’s part of what keeps a democracy, well, democratic. This issue is particularly important following revelations that “Military and F.B.I. officials have drawn criticism for monitoring what were largely peaceful antiwar protests.” We need to ask questions to keep government accountable, otherwise we loose that right. As such, I don’t see anything wrong with the NYTimes story.
As to the timing of the story, I can’t say but don’t really think it matters all that much.