Regards

“I’m sorry, but I don’t trust the NY Times to make sound judgments of any sort, let alone the weighty decisions under discussion. The newspaper is failing its mission, and frankly it is well past the time for law enforcement (read: Department of Justice) to help shape the debate as to what the NYT can and cannot do.”

- I don’t trust the Bush Administration to make sound judgements of any sort. So there!

I try my best to get my news from as many different sources as possible, as different sources will have different angles and specific information, and, of course, no single news source gets it right every time.

- If the DOJ intervenes and starts sending reporters and editors off to jail every time a story runs that raises the government’s ire, then that would effectively be the end of free speech/press in America. A precedent would be established that would make reporting on government activity prohibitively risky for news organizations. The news media would be reduced to running government-approved fluff pieces. There might be specific instances where taking legal action against the news media might serve specific tactical purposes, either with regard to military operations or, more ominously, with regard to political goals at home, but there’s a reason why our government hasn’t taken this route (yet). Just wait for the next terrorist strike here at home; then I’m sure you will see the end of any meaningful investigative reporting into government activity. It will be just like the days right after 9/11 when virtually nobody in the news media dared to question anything the Bush Administration did.

You asked a number of legitimate questions about the NYT’s conduct. I have no way of knowing what they are thinking. Perhaps they are responding to pressure from advertisers or other coporate interests who feel that they have a stake in what gets reported and what doesn’t. (?)

Given that the NYT is based in NYC, which is easily the most popular terror target in North America, I can’t imagine them simply being careless about running a story about a counter-terrorism program. They may be liberal, but they’re not morons. Having read the article, I didn’t see anything that stood out in terms of jeopardizing the program. If you see something that I don’t, please share. Is anybody really surprised that the government has such a program? I’ve often quipped that taking the NYT to task for this article would be like being upset with a newpaper for reporting that the Air Force has airplanes. Any terrorist worth his bomb belt has to figure that governments and financial institutions are on the lookout for shady activity.

Just for fun, here’s the artilce:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=4b46b4fd8685c26b&ex=1308715200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Having said all of this, I’m not really out to defend the NYT. They can do that themselves.

Thank you for your thoughts and comments. Have a good week-end.

I appreciate the debate and think it’s a question worth very serious thought. History has shown that administrations on both sides of the aisle are willing to abuse information, and since administrations come and go, it is worth setting the bar at a level that protects our personal liberties without jeopardizing our safety and way of life.

I also believe, as you seem to, that a free press is indispensible, not only in terms of freedom of speech but also as a part of our checks and balances.

That is precisely why I find the NY Times’ behavior to be so baffling. What civil (or other) liberties were being violated by our Swift program? Especially given the civil liberty-friendly nature of the program, why could the NYT not listen to the opinion of our elected officials, who had to have been more knowledgeable about the value of the intelligence? Was it really such a stretch to believe that the administration could not be trusted on this point?

And why, as others have pointed out, has the NYT not provided articles on Al Qaeda cells, as British papers have done? Why can the NYT expose a United States government program after months and years of looking, but cannot engage an arabic speaker to attend a few mosques and file a report?

And why, in its fervent defense of free speech, is the New York Times unwilling to publish the Danish cartoons? And if the New York Times is so interested in defending civil liberties, why in the world did it publish photos of Rumsfeld’s house, including identifying the security camera in the front yard?

I’m sorry, but I don’t trust the NY Times to make sound judgments of any sort, let alone the weighty decisions under discussion. The newspaper is failing its mission, and frankly it is well past the time for law enforcement (read: Department of Justice) to help shape the debate as to what the NYT can and cannot do.

1) “Where? Where do you see any conservative saying anything REMOTELY like the government should operate in TOTAL secrecy and the citizens should have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to know about intel programs?”

- This quote almost sounds like it is in defense of the press. I’m confused. I am an idiot, after all. It seems that you would either advocate a position that the press should be free to report as it sees fit, or you would advocate a position that the press should be beholden to government. Which is it? If we declare entire topics relating to government conduct to be off-limits for public consumption via the media, isn’t that tantamount to government operating in secrecy? Your thoughts, please…

2) Am I a liar, an idiot, or a boob? Please make up your mind.

3) You’re right to call me on the straw man thing. I did that deliberately, as creating straw men is a favorite tool of the Right. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard/read some right-winger declare that liberals hate America or that the NYT serves Al-Qaeda.

4) I say ” democracy such as it is ” because, unfortunately, the bulk of our “representation” in our government represents not common citizens, but wealthy corporations and special-interest groups.

5) “Your wild, immature exaggerations belong on talk boards like Democractic Underground or Kos, not places where adults gather to discuss the issues of the day.”

- Actually, I have little use for DU or Kos. I have the same problems with them that I have with right-wing nuts. Opposite sides of the same coin… Who are these adults who I should blindly trust? Are these the “adults” who run America today, as in “the adults are in charge?” Should I assume that our adult government knows better than I do what is good for me? I’m in the darkness here, please bring me into the light.

6) I’m interested in your thoughts on my points #1 and #2 above, which you conveniently omitted in your response above.

Steve,

I agree with you that freedom involves trade-offs. I guess the question is where do we draw the line in terms of what we are willing to trade off and what are we not willing to part with?

What bothers me about all of this is that there seems to be an “It Can’t Happen Here” attitude with regard to the possibility of the government exploiting the public’s fears of terrorism and, subsequently, the public’s tendency to acquiesce to authority figures in the face of perceived terrorist threats to serve ends that might be well beyond the scope of the public interest. It is in the Bush Administration’s best interests to simultaneously propagate a fear of terrorism and the idea that only the Bush Administration can save America from terrorists, if we all just do as we’re told. - You in the news media, shut up and wave the flag!!!

In this case, I gave up the right to know about a legal program in which wholesale offshore banking transactions were scrutinized for terrorist links? My goodness, will life ever be the same? Now, thanks to the NYT and LAT, that right has been restored, at who knows what cost.

I am interested in protecting my children’s right not to be vaporized by a nuclear weapon smuggled into Times Square (no irony intended). I would like to hear from Nick Berg about his right to not have his head hacked off with a hunting knife, and videotaped and distributed for all to see, but he’s dead. I guess he doesn’t need rights or freedoms now.

But I digress. Karl Rove is monitoring me, and I have to get ready for work.

Where? Where do you see any conservative saying anything REMOTELY like the government should operate in TOTAL secrecy and the citizens should have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to know about intel programs?

You’re either a liar or an idiot. More liklely the latter. You think you can come here and set up straw men like that and not get knocked down for the boob you truly are?

Our “such as it is” democracy would be better served by serious people making serious arguments for the protection of civil liberties vis a vis the need for wartime security. Your wild, immature exaggerations belong on talk boards like Democractic Underground or Kos, not places where adults gather to discuss the issues of the day.

A common reply to this is, “If you’re not involved in any wrongdoing, then you have nothing to worry about.” This will be followed with tired lines about being at war and in wartime the government should have special powers, blah, blah, blah… Trust us and we will protect you!

1) If the American public as a whole subscribes to these concepts, then those in power have every incentive to ensure that we are constantly in a state of war, thereby necessitating a continuum and/or expansion of special or secret powers. Perhaps it is no accident that three years on, after turning corner after corner, and capturing or killing so many of AQ’s #2 leaders (how many #2’s can you have, anyway?), Iraq is still such a mess.

2) If these powers are not held in check to some degree or are not subject to some degree of general transparency, then there is nothing to stop this administration or a future one from expanding these programs beyond their original (and for the sake of this discussion, I will assume legitimate) intents regarding the GWOT and perhaps using these programs against Amercan citizens; perhaps those who don’t belong to the correct political party, attend the correct churches, or support other correct party-approved agenda items.

Conservatives seem to be promoting a position on these issues that might be more in line with the thinking of old Soviet-style party hardliners than freedom-loving Americans; sacrifice the free flow of information and, subsequently, its critical role in allowing an electorate to make inforomed decisions at the polls, on the altar of party power. Predictable conservative knee-jerk reaction to this post would be a case-in-point.

Either you’re for freedom or you’re against it.

Re “responding to questions from the press”, the following go far beyond response to questions IMO.
Quoting Dick Cheney (note: I can’t find a date for the first quote but it seems in context):

“Some in the press, in particular The New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs,” Vice President
Dick Cheney said in a speech at a political fundraising luncheon in Grand Island, Neb.

“The New York Times has now twice — two separate occasions — disclosed programs; both times they had been asked not to publish those stories by senior administration officials,” Cheney said. “They went ahead anyway. The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging.”

and
“What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people,” Mr. Cheney said, in impromptu remarks at a fund-raising luncheon for a Republican Congressional candidate in Chicago. “That offends me.”

Peter King, a Republican congressman from New York:
“We’re at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous,”
GWBush:
“The disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We’re at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America. What we were doing was the right thing. Congress was aware of it, and we were within the law to do so. If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror.”

Tony Snow rambled on at length along the same lines.

Rick on your comment #2, I agree that the Times will find ways to soldier on (forgive the irony), with the caveat that they are print media as well as content providers, the former being certainly in broad decline. I live in NYC, and everyone reads the Times, so I see no immediate bankruptcy. Over time, however, the paper will find it more difficult to fund pet projects and to field as many reporters as they do. Their influence may diminish, which would be something to celebrate.

On #13 Bill Arnold, there was never any way for this to stay “in the bag,” my goodness it was on the front page of the New York Times!! The Administration essentially responded to a few questions from the press, so effectively it did exactly what you are suggesting. Both sides of Congress are working on resolutions, the blogs on both sides have been fired up, and the Times itself has printed a series of CYA articles on the subject.

The Times’ Keller used this argument right out of the chute, that the Adminisration should have kept it quiet, but to my mind this is the most shameful of all his comments. He put it on the front page, for the entire world to see. It’s like claiming that McDonald’s is a little out-of-the-way hamburger joint.