“Wild Bill” Keller appeared on television last night in what can only be described as “the friendliest forum available” – on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. Since Keller deigned not to explain his decision to publish information on the top secret wire transfer monitoring program in his arrogant and rather cryptic “letter” to readers in yesterday’s edition, he counted on Blitzer not to dig too deeply into his motivations and instead allow him to skate through relatively unscathed.
Good move, Bill. With anger taking on something of a bi-partisan tone for the first time in years (at least outside the blogs where liberals insist that this is one more indication that Bush is Hitler without the mustache and jack boots), Keller probably realized he couldn’t hide under his desk forever and not pretend to answer some of the issues that led him to publish a story that ruined a program that by all accounts was legal, had proper oversight, and most importantly, actually caught some bad guys.
The argument made here that ” [a]nyone who thinks that the people who carried out 9/11 don’t know that we are tapping their phones, reading their emails and checking into their financing, is an idiot” is true up to a point. Terrorists may know we are trying to tap their phones but I doubt very much whether they realized most of our capabilities in this regard. For instance, by knowing the specific measures that we take in not just intercepting phone calls to each other but also to people who may be totally unrelated to their terrorist activities, one more avenue of potential monitoring dries up. The NSA intercept program – details of which are still lacking (which hasn’t stopped the left from declaring the program “illegal”) – was far more than a wiretapping program. It was designed to uncover terrorist networks, not just the jihadis themselves.
The fact that it was successful in doing so makes the above argument ring a little hollow. Despite taking ordinary precautions against having their communications monitored, once the program became public knowledge, the jihadis could put in place countermeasures making it that much harder for us to find out what they’re up to.
In a similar vein, the wire transfer program will now be useless to us. The fact that 9/11 hijackers received Western Union wire transfers on a regular basis probably alerted the terrorists to the idea that this particular way of moving money was now closed to them. But what about their financiers? The Islamic charities here and abroad that maintain a steady flow of cash to terrorist groups like Hamas, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, and others as well as the individuals who fund terrorists may or may not have been aware of the extent of our monitoring or of our capabilities to pull these transactions and the networks they reveal out of thin air.
Ultimately, the point is why assume they know everything that we are doing to spy on them? With that kind of attitude, we may as well shut everything down and wait for an attack, that trying to monitor their activities is useless and we may as well give up.
I think most Americans would reject that approach which is why, as Patterico points out here, Keller, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal may be in more trouble than they realized prior to publication:
The decision to prosecute newspaper personnel for publishing classified information is a vexing one that pits the core American value of free speech against a legitimate need for secrecy in some areas. I think that, in the particular circumstances of this case, a good argument can be made that a prosecution would be consistent with the relevant statutes and the Constitution. However, it is by no means certain that we would obtain a conviction — and prosecutions would be very bad public relations.Accordingly, we should concentrate on finding the leakers, first and foremost. If that means dragging some journalists before a grand jury and forcing them to out their sources or go to jail, then so be it.
I think that analysis is spot on given that every newspaper and broadcast outlet in the country would oppose prosecution, no matter how much they may deserve it. And the people’s anger against the outing of this program may grow as information comes to light that there was a bi-partisan effort prior to the Times and others running their stories on this program to quash publication. Treasury Secretary Snow:
Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were “half-hearted” is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times – from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.(HT: Captains Quarters)
While it appears that the LA Times has made a concerted effort to explain and justify its decision (that Patterico takes apart here), Keller has maintained a facade of arrogance about publication of the story that either reveals him to be completely clueless about the real anger at what the Times did or unconcerned about its impact on the War on Terror. Since Keller swears that he and his reporters assessed the potential damage to our efforts to fight terrorism, one would have to conclude that Keller and the Times ultimately placed their own narrow interpretation of the civil liberties implications of the program over what all agree was the importance of the program to uncovering terrorist networks.
This is arrogant and elitist on the part of Keller and the Times. And if we are forced to pay for their delusions of power by enduring a devastating terrorist attack, I daresay the questions asked of Keller will not be coming from bloggers, but from Federal prosecutors.
UPDATE
Steve Sturm suggests denying the New York Times access to the White House as well as Air Force I and other Presidential sites. In short, yank their press credentials.
It’s an interesting idea. I believe that the Administration froze out Helen Thomas in the immediate aftermath of the invasion – not for publishing secrets but because she was so rabid in her criticism. They didn’t yank her press pass but both the press secretary and the President refused to acknowledge her at press conferences and briefings. Since Thomas is the “Dean” of the Washington press corp, this was a slight that did not go unnoticed.
Can the Administration take away press privileges for the Times? I’m sure they can. But given the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would emanate from the media nationwide, my guess is that they may take them out of the loop the way they dissed Helen Thomas.
12:22 pm
Check out American Future and American Digest for more fallout on this.
12:36 pm
Section 798. Disclosure of classified information
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
government to the detriment of the United States any classified
information concerning the communication intelligence activities
of the United States or any foreign government
12:43 pm
Don’t confuse the case of Helen Thomas with this situation. Helen was a reporter for UPI for decades, but when the Moonies bought UPI, she fled. This changed her status for wire reporter for UPI to simple columist. The White House has a long tradition of giving wire reporters the first and last question (or something like that) so Helen’s status change affected the likelihood she would be called upon for a question.
Of course, Helen got all snippety when she wasn’t called upon, but this change was of here choosing; the Moonies didn’t force her out.
2:46 pm
I am all for pulling their press credential. The criteria for a Pentagon press pass is to pass a background security check. I don’t see how any employee of the NYT could pass a security check at this point.
3:39 pm
What about WAPO, the Wall Street Jounal, Scarborough Country, and the dozens of other novelists who reported at the same time? What about the people who put it in books, long before the Times ever did? Simple question… do you believe the Executive branch should determine what can be published by our free press?
Bottom line, the Aministration should not be commenting on this in such a way as to confirm or deny it. They should stop crying, and start worrying about their own propaganda and press manipulation, instead of trying to use the law and abuse the 1st Amendment of CONUS. WAAAAAA. Bed wetters, all!
4:05 pm
And, by the way, this program was mentioned by the POTUS, and the Treasury Secretary in 2001. No mention of that, I noticed.
4:50 pm
Rick,
You are right. A couple years back a “soldier” who was ani-Iraqi war was reporting on a blog about his platoon. The army shut it down because they claimed that in the blog it depicted position and military strategy. They stated that it was a resource the insurgency could use against them. A lot of people were pissed off because soldier lost his “right to free speech”. Of course we like most sane people realize that the army is seperate from rest of the United States. It doesn’t have to adhere to all of the rules that we civilians have to adhere. In fact, they have stricter rules of their own. They question now is does National Security have its own rules seperate from the rest of the country.
I have an interesting question. It may seem childish, but I want some answers for this.
If the Constitution was written before Benedict Arnold commit treason, would he have been within his rights. I think it is safe to assume that most of us consider this not covered by the first amendment. The question why is this not considered protected and while the New York Times is considered protected. While, the Times did not act intentionally treasonously did they accidently? Or was it just an example of partisanship being declared more important than America herself?
10:58 pm
The only way to get the attention of any media source is to stop supporting it. The ultra-liberal Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) is hurting for subscribers. They are maning the telephones seeking subscribers. I receive a call at least once a week. There not enough liberals to make up the difference. It just takes time. The AJC is the main news paper in the state and there are few local papers that are worth anything. My local paper is growing in circulation. I have to start picking on the editor who is a pretty good guy. Where do I get my news. I cherry pick from a lot of papers and sites such as this one.
Bless all of you.
11:00 pm
Isn’t it great. Four months before the election the dim-wits and their supporters prove they are liars, traitors and spies for the enemy. Do the Republicans need more to bury the idiot left wing? The have left no doubt that the security and lives of the American poople mean less to them than their quest for power. Go democrats, the public isn’t as supid as you think, that is those not tied to your apron string for life by welfare.
12:09 am
Neo,
Just as a point of fact the code you cite only applies to SIGINT and more specifically COMINT activities. So the the NSA wiretap leak would fall under it, but not this latest leak.
I heard a soft-ball interview with Keller on NPR today where he gave the same basic argument that “everyone already knows.” That’s a totally BS argument, and I know from personal experience.
1:23 am
Speaking of the Saudis
Is this what Sandy Berger was trying to hide in his sox ?
4:26 pm
Rick, I’m beginning to see a problem here. I too support in principle the idea that the people we should be going after are the leakers. However: I think I see a pattern in these leaks, and the pattern is that, with one exception (the Verizon phone-call database business), all of the programs that have been exposed are things that required cooperation from Europe. So I’m thinking that the NYT’s sources are European. That being the case, trying to prosecute the sources is pointless; European governments aren’t going to prosecute them for violations of U.S. law, and they aren’t going to agree to extradition.
This leaves the Administration in a quandry. If reporters are not going to be prosecuted, then Washington appears to have only three choices, none of them good: (1) Ignore the problem; keep trying to devise new programs and hope that they can do some good before they are compromised. (2) Cease cooperation with Europe. Given that there are things that still have to be done in Europe, this probably means engaging in covert ops on European soil. (3) Declare WWII-style martial law and impose censorship on the press.
8:00 pm
OAKvcLvBMopWc DeCTf3h2JHYsYO bbIGt5YPrp