The NY Times Responds
Posted on June 26, 2006
New York Times Editor Bill Keller responded to the tons of email and letters of anger that were sent to them over revealing National Security issues.
A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.
Frankly, given the reputation of the New york Times these days, I find them a less credible source for defining the subtleties behind any discussion, than I do the administration.
Clearly Keller is feeling the heat, as he and the NY Times should. Personally, I would advocate for a prosecution, or at the very least, a Congressional hearing. Something has to be done to start reigning in our irresponsible media during a period of difficult and protracted war.
The issue that most bloggers are going to take issue with is this paragraph.
Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government’s anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that’s the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)
This is quite a sly way to shift the blame onto those that are attempting to hold you account. It is disingenuous, and the response is a half hearted, if that, bunch of blather and fodder. The Times is clearly under heat and only respond hidden away from tough questions.
The very first thing Mr. Keller does is suggest that “conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits” are behind the uproar. This is not responsive at all to any of the many criticisms of the decision to publish, and the parenthetical aside is absurd –does he really think that the story is more publicized among terrorists because critics react to it? He must believe the terrorists to be very stupid indeed, but in so arguing reveals himself to be ignorant of the very sophisticated internet tacticians among the jihadists.
Rather than give a reasoned and calm reply, Keller played politics, citing “the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits” and engaging in parenthetical well-so-are-you playground games:
Wizbang has the best summary out there.
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
Michael Barone at RCP has a great post:
Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?
Again, I’m laughing at Keller’s response that releasing Classified information is in the public interest. What about the public interest to be safe?
Andy McCarthy has the same question and more.
Is there some illegality going on in the government’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (exposed by the Times and other news outlets Friday)? No, no laws have been broken. Is there some abuse of power? No, there seem to have been extraordinary steps taken to inform relevant officials and win international cooperation. Why then? Why take action that can only aid and comfort the enemy in wartime?
Because, Keller haughtily pronounced, American methods of monitoring enemy money transfers are “a matter of public interest.”
Really? The Times prattles on about what it claims is a dearth of checks and balances, but what are the checks and balances on Bill Keller? Can it be that our security hinges on whether the editor of an antiwar, for-profit journal thinks some defense measure might be interesting?
Well, here’s something truly interesting: There are people in the U.S. intelligence community who are revealing the nation’s most precious secrets.
The media aspire to be the public’s watchdog? Ever on the prowl to promote good government? Okay, here we have public officials endangering American lives. Public officials whose violation of a solemn oath to protect national defense information is both a profound offense against honor and a serious crime.
What about the public interest in that? What about the public interest in rooting out those who betray their country in wartime?
It does not fall to the Times to make that decision, especially when no laws have been broken — as the NYT explicitly reported. The government (all three branches) , by the way, makes the rules; we elect them to do that. We don’t elect the LAT or the NYT to arrogantly decide whether those laws have value or not. If they change the rules, we elect them to do that, too. As both newspapers reported endlessly in the wake of 9/11, a lot of rules needed changing in order to effectively protect us against the terrorists that want to kill us.
Didn’t we demand that of Congress and the White House? If so, why did the Fourth Estate decide to blow covert tactics that worked within the law to do just that?
When people like Keller abuse the responsibility handed them and put all of us at risk of attack, then all of us are forced to take actions against those people who risk our lives for their gains. Keller is no more a saint than the perps at Enron. The Times is in this game for the money. The NY Times should be boycotted and every advertiser they have put on notice. One ad in the NY Times is a lifetime out in retail pregatory - no sale.
We The People have power too King William, and our power is also strange and formidable. All it requires us to do is to turn our back on you and your advertisers. A very simple effort in this society of plenty (which means plenty of choices). Goodbye King William, see you in court (I hope).
His concept of the media’s relationship with the administration is thus explicitly adversarial; he even hints at a boxing metaphor in his letter, describing the press and the government as proceeding “from opposite corners.” Imagine: we’ve got two and a half years more of war to fight under Bush, and the executive editor of the New York Times is telling you he sees his role as obstructing the government even when it hasn’t done anything wrong. Dan Rather said last week that he doesn’t want reporters to practice journalism differently from the way it was practiced in Edward R. Murrow’s day. Does he really think this is how they did it during World War II?
And since when is the Times so worried about preempting the electorate, anyway? They didn’t mind preempting our right to pass judgment when they refused to publish the Mohammed cartoons. Where was Independent Prosecutor Keller in that case? Hiding under his desk and dumping in his pants, that’s where.
What would George Washington say?
I’m with Rep. Peter King!
“We’re at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous,” King told The Associated Press.
He is urging the administration to bring about criminal charges. Expose The Left has video. I agree.
Others: Patterico
Austin Bay
Michelle Malkin
Michelle’s Vent at Hot Air
Right Wing Nuthouse
Blue Crab Boulevard
Just One Minute
Update: Bush slams the NY Times. Hot Air has video.
» Filed Under News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
11 Responses to “The NY Times Responds”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
“We’re at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous,” King told The Associated Press.”
This guy’s lucky we don’t have constitutional comprehension tests to have public office.
The liberals believe that Bush and the Republicans are more a risk to their freedom(agenda) than the terrorist are.
“This guy’s lucky we don’t have constitutional comprehension tests to have public office.”
Do tell.
“Do tell. ”
He doesn’t seem to understand how the constitution defines treason.
Let’s start by prosecuting the CIA perp we already know about (Mary McCarthy). Once her pension has been absconded, and once she has been bled dry of her assets through legal bills accrued defending herself against charges of sedition and treason, this POS will serve as an example to other CIA Quislings who are also contemplating hiding behind the media shield, that it is NOT okay to subvert foreign policy set by elected officials. If you in the CIA disagree with Administration policies, the proper course of action for you is to quit–not to leak national secrets. Stop being cowards! Stand up for your beliefs by quiting your gov’t job on principle!
“He doesn’t seem to understand how the constitution defines treason.”
Tell me, how does the constitution define treason.
Through the selfish, reckless, arrogant act of publishing our national secrets–without regard for the greater national interest served by not publishing them–the MSM is squandering the fragile consideration offered the fourth estate to protect their sources. This may be damage that can never be repaired, which is something I don’t want to see happen.
I would include in this litany CBS and the Abu Gharib images [while stubbornly refusing to transmit images of the atrocities perpetrated by the Muslim extremists (including the Berg beheading, the WTC collapse...)], NBC’s 7/2004 story on CIA involvement in Iraq’s then-pending elections (casting doubt on the validity of those elections), the Washington Post story on Eastern European prison camps, the story on cell phone monitoring, the stories disclosing the enemy’s most effective tactics (and our greatest vulnerabilities)…etc.
While I don’t begrudge the reporters who cover the Iraq War holing-up in the Al Rashad, (instead of moving out among the populace) to make their reports–Iraq is after all a very dangerous place–there is more to the IW than US troop death counts, and video on the (next) “atrocity” committed by US troops. Maybe it would be more accurate for the media to report nothing, than to just bombard us with these canned, one-sided “stories”.
The U.S. Constitution Section 3. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ”
The ACLU and the American Bar Association are both guilty of treason since they have agreed to advance the principles of the United Nations over the U.S. Constitution.
This is because the constitutional oath declares those who attack the Constitution as enemies of the United States.
If the NY Times is knowingly aiding Al Queda then they are guilty of treason.
Is the New York Times forgetting something?
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014523.php
Answer a simple question:
What, exactly, was the top secret program that the New York Times allegedly revealed?
Reply to #24:
I’ll take a crack at this: Like the broadcaster announcing his team’s game, we want our media to share our perspective, and report accordingly–not aid the enemy. If there’s a single would-be terrorist who will be able to evade detection, transfer money, improve on his recruitment quota of homicide bombers, and plan more effective tactics–including more-potent IEDs–as a consequence of the frequently-despicable reporting by our media of the IW…well, there’s your answer. Yes, our media should be supporting our war effort–not undermining it. And they certainly should not serve as mouthpieces for Quislings lurking within our government.