In what may or may not be an unprecedented action, the New York Times’ executive editor, Bill Keller, has written a “letter” on his paper’s banking records article.
- “Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government’s actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.”
At best, the Times is accurately reporting what those who are discomforted have to say about the programs. It isn’t in a position to assess the accuracy of the dissenters’ depictions of the programs. Human nature being what it is, to assume that the dissenters’ depictions are entirely faithful to reality is to be incredibly naive.
- “It’s not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don’t know about it.”
By publishing the story, the Times is passing judgment on whether the program is legal. I doubt very much that the Times would publish an article having as its headline “Secret Intelligence Program Is Legal”. If the paper thought it was legal, what would be the point of disclosing it? To publish an article on a secret program after the government has requested that it not be published necessarily implies that the Times believes that its legality is questionnable. And to do so without having identified any privacy abuses is to indict the government for a victimless crime.
- “I can appreciate that other conscientious people could have gone through the process I’ve outlined above and come to a different conclusion. But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues.”
No animus?
Bill Keller may be telling the truth, they may not have an opinion on the legality nor an animus for this administration; an animus towards the US in general would motivate the same behavior. After all there problem isn’t so much with Bush as us peckerwoods that voted him in office- and will choose his successor.
Isn’t it interesting that Bill Keller seems to think that the NYT can pass moral judgement by emphasizing only one side of the story—which, from its past performance, clearly doesn’t understand.
Mr. Keller should ask his boss, Pinch Duranty, about the Sulzberger coverup of the Stalinist genocide against Ukrainian peasants in the early 1930’s. Of course the Sulzberger spinmeisters will not own up to this, because the documentary evidence shows that Walter Duranty was on Stalin’s payroll!
Word Straight From The Horses…
Pick your own end. Bill "I decide, you listen" Kellor, editor of the New York Times explains his reasoning for publishing the story on the financial tracking program. Right off the bat he descends into the realm of the inane:
Some o…
It is an irrefutable fact that American woman and children are in greater danger of being murdered by terrorists today than they were before Keller published his story. And what does he offer to justify this? Vague and self-serving speculation dripping with the vacuous “what-if consequences” of the posturing pseudo-intellectual.
This nation cannot afford the moral preening and ethical hubris of Keller and the other Ivory Tower Chair Queens that “know” what’s best for us.
Check out the 6/23 post at
http://counterterrorismblog.org/
for more on this “news.”
The NYT cites people who felt discomfort over the program. When did they feel this? Were any of their concerns addressed, and did this result in modifications to the program? I am not happy about he time compression in this article, when in fact such programs are probably modified regularly to increase effectiveness and deal with objections.
“A reasonable person, informed about this program, may well decide to applaud it.” The NYT certainly did not provide enough info for a reasonable person to make a judgement.
A reasonable person would assume that the congressional intelligence commitees and others in congress (to say nothing of officials of foreign governments cooperating in the program) might have enough information and perhaps even the expertise to evaluate it.
A reasonable person would assume that such commitees do not always reach unanimous decisions, but that this does not make the decision illegitimate. A reasonable person knows that intelligence matters can not be handled at a town meeting.
A reasonable person realizes that terrorist organizations piece together information from many sources when planning their activities and that it’s a good idea to keep them in the dark as much as possible.
A reasonable person should know that this article will produce scare headlines in the world press and soundbites for terrorist propaganda. A reasonable person should know that this article serves to delegitimize activities of our legitimate, elected government and cause difficulties in foreign relations.
A reasonable person would assume that Bill Keller belongs in a feel-my-discomfort self-help group, not in a postion of media power. Maybe he should talk to Oprah about this.
I truly hope the source for this breach of national security will be punished.
Realize of course, had the M$M acted this way in WWII we would be speaking German.
I also think it is important that Gen Hayden fishes out the rats in the CIA that leaked this story. Not only should they be fired from the CIA, they should be prosecuted and sent to jail if found guilty.
Who the hell are these weasels in the CIA that continually feel they can throw national security into the toilet to settle political scores?
The people at the NY Times are just no good.
yeah cuz we’ve had like 10 terror attacksd since the NSA article came out. Why can’t we know the government is doing this? Keller makes two good points
1. the US talks about tracking terrorist dollars all the time. or at least has in the past
2. The New York Times is in new york. they are far more likely to be victims of terror than michelle malkin or the nascar nazis at powerline.
You can tap or torture whoever you want. the problem is our policies. The federal government will never be able to give any citizen anything better than mediocre anything.
I shouldn’t rise to the bait, but I will. Why can’t we know all classified information? Because publishing classified information often makes it possible for the enemy to evade the hitherto classified efforts. Yes, it was known the US was trying to track terrorist financial transactions. But it wasn’t known just how that was being done. Now that the Times has published the details, it will be easier for the terrorists to evade this effort.
As to the Times being in New York, so what? Are you saying that because what they did makes New York more likely to be attacked that they are absolved of responsibility? That’s not even wrong, it’s just insane.
Your last few sentences are devoid of any meaning at all, so far as I can tell.
Lester,
I’d like to point you to an era of politicians and decision makers that once were grown-ups. In the middle of a war in Europe and the Pacific, there was an inquiry into what failed in allowing a successful sneak attack by Japan at Pearl Harbor. Governor Dewey, who was running against FDR, found out that the U.S. Military had broken the Japanese code prior to Pearl Harbor. If this information reached the public, it would have surely caused Roosevelt great harm politically.
However, the Japanese were still using the codes and if it became public knowledge, the Japanese would have changed them up and we’d have to start over again. This secret was literally measurable in lives. General Marshall, without authorization from the President sent a letter to the Governor pleading with him in behalf of the war effort not to make that information public.
Dewey listened to Marshall and remained silent. Allied intelligence continued to evesdrop on Japan for the rest of the war, Dewey lost the election, but most importantly, America defeated Japan.
In the case of terror financing, we aren’t talking about a revelation that will cause us to “lose” the war, but we are talking about something that will now make it a little harder since we telegraphed our pass. Funding is very important to these non-state actors and without it, and most importantly, we could see where it was coming from and where it was going. It is almost better than having a satellite tracking their every move from above, since not only could you track the participants, you could see what they were using it for.
Your “argument,” which implies that the absence of terror attacks since the article, is a strawman dripping in gasoline.
then you’ll agree the argument that “we haven’t gtotten hit again” since 9/11 is a straw guy as well.
Forget arguments, what’s great about this story is it is making the right wingers FURIOUS. Bil Keller is our ann coulter!
No, Bill Keller is your Julius Rosenberg. Again.
I’ll bet Lester doesn’t know who Julius Rosenberg was.
I’m trying to be civil Mark, I really am. But it’s hard…
wasn’t julius rosenberg the one who gave nuclear secrets to the russians? He and his wife got the death penalty didn’t they? sort of like the scooter n karl of their day
Except that they were guilty. More like the Clinton and Gore of their day, except they were held to account for their nuclear secrets transfers to the enemy.
? clinton and gore gave nuclear secrets to our enemy? did we even have an enemy 92-98? I think the last one to slip secrets to the soviets was Israel via Pollard.
Clinton and Gore gave military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions. Where were you in the ‘90’s? This was generally known. If you want details, I’ll get them for you.
doug- that’s ridiculous.
Denial of facts doesn’t make them go away Lester. If you believe that Clinton and Gore selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese is ridiculous, you are unreachable. I notice you didn’t ask for any details or proof. Fingers in your ears, saying “I can’t hear you!” loudly, eh?
NO, i just think they’d be in jail if they did that. right besides jonathon pollard
Who do you think controlled the investigatory agencies, Lester? Clinton controlled the Justice Department, the FBI, all of them. Bill Clinton couldn’t have been jailed for anything short of committing murder on the White House steps in front of TV cameras.
doug- those are the ramblings of a lunatic. what are you going to tell me next Mossad blew up the golden shrine in sammara
If I give you the details, would you actually look at them and not dismiss them peremptorily, Lester? I don’t feel like trying to educate you if you refuse to make the effort to learn.
I’ll google them myself. I’ll just google “Clinton Chronicles”. You know Israel doesn’t recognize taiwans existence?
Here, read this Lester: How Chinagate Led to 9/11. I know you will try to ignore it because it isn’t from one of your approved sources, but do try to actually think about it and examine it’s premises objectively. Not that I think you can. And what in the world does Israel not recognizing Taiwan have to do with anything at all?
I was making an inference about Israel selling our miltary secrets to China. which actual news agencies, unlike your david horrible-witz link, have confirmed.
None so blind as those who will not see, Lester.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39192
I never denied the Israeli action, Lester. But if you can’t see the fundamental difference between a sovereign nation following its own perceived interests (no matter how much we deplore them) in selling technology to our enemies and the president of the United States (who was elected to defend the US and its constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic) selling the same enemy military secrets, then you are completely unreachable. The only reason I continue to respond to you is to prevent you from infecting anyone else with your deeply delusional beliefs.
doug- the bottom line is our military secrets and equipment getting into the hands of the Chinese. How it got there isn’t going to help us when it is coming at us. and I think israel’s sale of weapons is far more proveable than Chinagate. plus, Clinton isn’t the president anymore, israel is doing this as we speak.