As I’m busy writing a paper, I won’t have much time today to comment on the decision of the New York Times “to disclose last night another classified surveillance program aimed at gathering information about terrorist plots.” Bill Keller, the paper’s executive editor, claims that, despite Administration’s pleas not to keep this legal program secret, he decided to publish the story anyway as “a matter of public interest.“
I wonder if Keller and others at the Times want to help the president by this. Given the president’s lackluster polls of late, the paper’s editors likely disclosed this secret program to show what a thorough job President Bush is doing to win the War on Terror. Without media disclosure of this clandestine program, Americans would not otherwise know what efforts the Administration has been taking to catch terrorists before they attack us.
Alas that in their zeal to show the president’s commitment to catching terrorists, the Times may have compromised this program which helped us track down and arrest at least one such villain. If the terrorists know about it, they may find different means to transfer money.
Not only that. On the same day the paper shows one of the many ways the Administration has been trying to track down terrorists, we learn of another success in the War on Terror. The Justice Department announced that it has broken up a terror ring in Florida.
Given that the Times devoted its front page to revelations of the clandestine program, it had to bury this good news deeper in the paper.
(Hat tips: Instapundit and Pajamas who have excellent roundups.)
UPDATE: Please note I have revised this piece since first posting it. While the president’s critics are engaging in their usual bellyaching about an Administration anti-terror initiative, it appears they’re rushing to judgment. As the Vice President (and others in the Administration) said today, it passes constitutional muster.
Other bloggers have pretty much said most of what I have to say about this program. Make sure to check the roundups not only on Instapundit and Pajamas, but also on Michelle Malkin’s blog. Like Calarato in comment #1 below, I’m pretty much with the Powerline guys on this one.
I believe there are two points to make about this story:
(1) It shows that the president is committed to the War on Terror, pursuing all legal means to track down terrorists seeking to attack Americans (hence my somewhat sarcastic spin in the headline above).
(2) The New York Times is more interested in “getting” the president than in respecting his the Chief Executive’s role in promoting the security of the American people. No wonder Vice President Cheney refused to give the Times special access to him during the campaign. As his daughter puts it in her most excellent book, Now It’s My Turn : A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life, “He knew the odds of getting a fair story out of the New York Times, in particular, were pretty much nonexistent.”
In Chapter 16, Mary details how in the final days of the 2004 campaign, the Times ran sixteen stories and columns on Al Qaqaa, a storage facility in Iraq from which 380 tons of explosives supposedly disappeared in the immediate aftermath of the liberation of Iraq. And then, as Mary puts its, a “search of the Times‘ own archives shows than in the four months after the 2004 election, there was exactly one mention of Al Qaqaa” in the paper. Seems the story was only important if it could hurt the president’s chances of reelection.
(Another reason, if you haven’t already to buy Mary’s book.)
UP-UPDATE: It looks like my attempt at sarcasm failed as one reader wrote in to ask if I were being sarcastic. No, I don’t think the NYT was trying to make the president look good. Its revelation will clearly hurt the Administration’s efforts to hunt those who would do us harm. But, it does show that the president is committed to using all legal means to catch those creeps.
UP-UP-UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds (AKA Instapundit) writes, “When big companies dump toxic waste into rivers to enrich themselves, they’re criticized by the press. But this is the same kind of thing — self-serving profiteering at the public’s expense.” I agree.
I’m with the Powerline guys on the Times’ latest leak:
JOHN adds: Meanwhile, former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Ronald N. Montaperto pled guilty yesterday to passing classified information to China. He will shortly be sentenced to prison. But the New York Times has repeatedly fed far more vital and more secret information to al Qaeda. We are not at war with China. We are at war with al Qaeda. I understand why Monaperto is going to jail. I do not understand why the dozens of CIA and New York Times employees who have peristently leaked classified information to al Qaeda are, apparently, not going to jail.
By definition I would think this is a treasonous act. It is aids and abets our enemies. I doubt there would be any difficulty in finding 2 witnesses as per the constitution. All it would require is a federal prosecutor with some guts.
Under the current management, the June 5th, 1945 NYT headline would have read;
NORMANDY SURPRISE INVASION FAILURE;
Today, hundreds of trousands of Allied soldiers are paying the price of poor weather-reporting by Allied Command cooped-up on 5,000 transports awaiting tomorrow morning’s restart against the beaches at Normandy.
sorry. this is the United States. we have a constitution. If the only way your policies can be carried out is that the consitution be abused you need to find different policies. Like getting out of the middle east completely instead of putting the whle region under martial law.
Hey Lester – Exactly what “abuse” of the Constitution does your example provide?
And, by the way, you are reciting word-for-word exactly what Osama wants as his victory. Congrats… you’ve chosen which side in the WOT you are on!
#4 – GP, I think the best term for someone like lester is “useful idiot.” Enough said.
Regards,
Peter H.
peter h – in a way it is. “useful idiot” is a term trotsky used. you guys support the neo con agenda which is communist in nature: one world government perpetual “revolution” (war). Osama wanted us to invade iraq and he’s been having the time of his life for the last 3 1/2 years. One of you posted the “safe house” document they found on zarqawi. his plan? lure the US into war with Iran using media manipulation and propaganda. He was essentially the Bill kristol of Baghdad.
what example of the constitution does which provide?
actually it was lenin and ther appears to be controversy over if he actually said it or not. it wa smost recently used by Mona Charen, whose columns on the quick victory in Iraq are darkly hilarious 3 1/2 years later. oh how the mighty have fallen
lester, the only “abuse” of the Constitution in this matter was an “abuse” of the intent of the First Amendment by the New York Times. I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever imagined that “freedom of the press” would end up being a shield for editors who deliberately betray their country’s best interests and put its citizens at risk from foreign enemies.
In case you missed it, lester, the Bush Administration briefed the congressional leadership and all the appropriate oversight committees in the House and Senate about this operation.
And, most importantly, lester, the chairman and co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission pleaded with the New York Times not to reveal the existence of this operation.
Trace, do you have a link for the info. in the last paragraph? I hadn’t read that–about the chairs of the 9/11 commission pleading with the Times editors. I’m quite busy with my paper (now over half-written) so just providing the link in the comments thread would be adequate. Thanks!
Dan,
It was reported on Fox News’ “Special Report” this evening, Friday, 23 June. The network reported that the NYT’s editor, a man named Weller, I believe, rejected requests by administration and congressional officials that the story not be printed (or, at least, key details be left out). The report added that the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission had also called the NYT and asked that the story not be printed.
By the way, Charles Krauthammer said he had information that even Congressman John Murtha voiced objections to the NYT.
I’ve avoided jumping on the bandwagon of those accusing the MSM of purposely aiding and abetting America’s enemies. Until now. The NYT found no abuse of citizens’ rights and the administration presented evidence to the NYT that the program is carefully administered and vital to our security. So why did the NYT still print the story, knowing to do so might harm the country? Because the NYT doesn’t care about the country’s security.
Furthermore, whomever leaked the information to the NYT should be ferreted out and prosecuted for treason.
Funny, Trace, I thought of you when I was watching that very Special Report this evening. After writing all but the conclusion of my paper, I took a break for a late dinner and switched on Fox just moments before acting anchor Jim Angle mentioned that.
Thanks for replying!
I agree–whoever leaked the info should be ferreted out and prosecuted.
11# – “I’ve avoided jumping on the bandwagon of those accusing the MSM of purposely aiding and abetting America’s enemies. Until now.”
Interesting Trace. – Just for my personal curiosity: would that mean (in your mind) that those “accusing the MSM of purposely aiding and abetting America’s enemies” were wrong – until now?
#2 pacific_waters — June 23, 2006 @ 1:44 pm – June 23, 2006
By definition I would think this is a treasonous act.
Apparently you, like many other conservatives, are unable to read the text of the 1st Amendment. What part of “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” do you all not understand? Given that the 1st Amendment was ratified after the ratification of the rump Constitution (that is, the Constitution without the Amendments) it takes precedence over anything that was in the rump Constitution. Including anything having to do with treason.
I recognize that the federal government has honored the speech and press protections of the 1st Amendment more in the breach than in the main, but that only goes to show you that conservatives really aren’t all that interested in the freedoms that were and supposedly are promised in the Constitution.
BTW, I could go on about the “treason” provision of Article I, but it should be clear that that was more a limitation on what the federal government could consider treason than anything else. It was not an affirmative criminal provision–if it had been there would have been no need for the federal government to codify the crime of treason in the federal criminal code.
#9 Trace Phelps — June 23, 2006 @ 7:52 pm – June 23, 2006
lester, the only “abuse” of the Constitution in this matter was an “abuse” of the intent of the First Amendment by the New York Times. I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever imagined that “freedom of the press” would end up being a shield for editors who deliberately betray their country’s best interests and put its citizens at risk from foreign enemies.
It’s interesting that you can claim to devine the “intent” of the 1st Amendment. How did you do that from persons long dead? Did you hold a seance? One might be able to devine an “intent” from the various versions that had been considered in congress before it was passed to the states for ratification, but if you were to do that you would discover that the congress broadened the scope of the amendment in each successive draft of the amendment, not narrow it. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1
It’s amusing that conservatives actually believe that it is an “abuse” of the constitution to make use of one’s rights thereunder. But that only goes to show that conservatives really don’t believe in the rule of law–when it differs from their most cherished beliefs.
BTW, Reynolds actually wrote something as positively ludicrous as what was reported in the post? I guess that even law perfessers are unable to distinguish between activities that are actually protected by the constitution–such as the press–and activities that are not protected by the constitution–such as pollution.
Just more evidence that Reynolds is a nut.
To Calarato in number 14: I’ve never disagreed with any of you that elements of the MSM are aiding and abetting America’s enemies. I just didn’t (or couldn’t) believe it was deliberate. I wanted to believe that it was MSM arrogance — “we’re doing it because we can”, or competition among the MSM to get scoops and win awards, or was an effort to underwine the Bush Administration, and the enemy benefitted from the MSM putting the MSM ahead of America’s security. The NYT’s latest decision to reveal details of a top-secret anti-terrorism program has changed my mind. I now agree that the NYT and other elite media despise a strong America and cheer for its enemies to knock America doan a notch or two.
Trace, thanks for the reply.
You mentioned several motives you’ve considered at different times, and I believe they all apply and are intertwined.
MSM left-liberal types are of the post-modern, “sophisticated internationalist”, anti-Vietnam War / anti-military, and pro-abortion generation(s) and school(s) of thought. They believe they should run the world. Whatever their stated, intellectual reasons for opposing Bush, emotionally they despise him for being sincerely (1) anti-abortion, (2) non-intellectual, (3) pro-American.
So: the BDS or Bush-hatred, the general arrogance, the desire for Pulitzers, the instinctive desire to see pro-American “rednecks” knocked down a peg, and the craving for the approval of foreigners all fit together and reinforce one another. In my view.
(No one should assume from the above that I am anti-abortion. Only that I accept and respect those who are.)
Regardless of analyzing emotions and motives, the bottom line remains that the MSM left-liberal types have put their partisan views (their desire to knock Bush and restore Democrat rule) ahead of American success in the GWOT.
raj, an amendment to the Constitution doesn’t alter the original document unless it specifically deletes or modifies language in the original document. The First Amendment’s freedom of the press clause gives the press a lot of leeway but not a free pass to violate the nation’s laws. Especially when a crime is spelled out in the Constitution, as treason is.
Treason is defined in Article III (not Article I) and, raj, the reason there are statues is Article III empowered Congress to establish punishments for treason.
Because of First Amendment protections for the press, there is an exceptionally-high standard for proving that the press has committed a crime; in the case of the New York Times, possible treason. While it is clear that the NYT is aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States, I doubt that the newspaper could be convicted of intentionally committing treason — at least as defined in Article III. And it would be a waste of government resources to try to prosecute the NYT. Besides, if the NYT were prosecuted and wins before a Republican Supreme Court, the elite media would take a NYT victory as a green light for more mischief and irresponsibility.
The government official(s) or congressional staffer(s) who leaked this information to the NYT, if they can be identified, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Unfortunately, although they betrayed their country, they probably can’t be charged with treason because of a technicality: they didn’t give the information directly to the terrorists.
BTW, raj, please don’t call me a “conservative”. That term used to describe what I believe in, what I stand for. While I haven’t changed, the contemporary meaning of “conservative” sure has.
#20 Trace Phelps — June 24, 2006 @ 10:58 pm – June 24, 2006
Treason is defined in Article III (not Article I) and, raj, the reason there are statues is Article III empowered Congress to establish punishments for treason.
Actually, we’re both a bit incorrect. You are correct that it is Art. III that mentions treason, but it is also the fact that the power to define and punish treason is inherent in any sovereign. See, for example, the brief for the United States in the case Abrams vs. United States:
(emphasis added)
But the fact is that the reference to treason in Art III is a limitation on the power of Congress, not an affirmative grant. The Constitution was not written in a vacuum, as should be evident from the Federalist Papers.
Because of First Amendment protections for the press, there is an exceptionally-high standard for proving that the press has committed a crime…
I do hope that you realize that you are saying that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. The 1st amendment specifically says that “Congress shall make no law….” How does that comport with your idea that congress can make a law specifically abridging a provision of the Constitution if there is an “exceptionally-high standard” of proof–whatever that means? Either the words of the Constitution actually mean something, or they don’t. You are suggesting that they don’t.
The government official(s) or congressional staffer(s) who leaked this information to the NYT, if they can be identified, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
You aren’t going to get an argument from me about that. Although I do believe that you may be a bit rash in your assumption that it was governmental officials or congressional staffers who actually leaked the information. That was the import of my citation of the Ha’aretz article. And, it should be noted that the reporting of Reagan’s “arms-for-hostages” deal was broken in a middle-east newspaper (if memory serves; it was from a newspaper in the region) before it was reported here. The points being that (i) successful terrorists might be vile, but they are not dumb, (ii) it was fairly well known years ago that the US gov’t would be trying to monitor inter-bank money transfers, and (iii) it is highly likely that any reasonably successful terrorists would have made “other arrangements” so that their money transfers would not show up in official records. Much like, I would be surprise if any reasonably successful terrorists would be using cell phones other than the “pre-paid” phones that one can buy anywhere off the street.
BTW, Abrams’s conviction was, of course, affirmed. Again indicating that the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee means little or nothing.
Also, I don’t particularly care whether you consider yourself to be a conservative. I haven’t followed your posts here, but the sad fact for conservatives in the US is that conservatism is what the predominate self-described conservative politicians claim it to be–particularly if they are elected to office. If you note, I have made no reference to conservatism in this comment.
#7-8: lester, you have already proven yourself as a mind-numbed tool of the left. Your postings merely confirm it. And based upon your other postings for different areas on this blog (“Iraq IS Vietnam — To Democrats and the News Media”), where you admit to plagiarizing and repeating talking points from lefty blogs, you have once again stepped into your own excrement.
Go sit in the corner until you get a clue.
Regards,
Peter H.
raj, I’m very much aware of what the Constitution says. Most men carry wallets in their back pockets; I carry a small leather-bound copy of the Constitution (for reasons not germane to this discussion).
I don’t care what you say about the First Amendment, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not absolute. There are not many limitations, but there are limitations — more on individual speech than on the press — and they have been upheld by the courts.
Libel immediately comes to mind. Whether it’s the New York Times or the Podunk Gazette, the press cannot libel individuals, organizations, corporations, etc. There is an exceptionally-high standard of proof required to convict the press.
While you might not consider it a freedom of the press issue, there long have been limitations on newspaper ownership (as well as television station ownership).
There are more limitations on the electronic press than the print press, including equal time provisions, penalties for obscenities, etc.
#23 Trace Phelps — June 25, 2006 @ 9:19 pm – June 25, 2006
If you actually were aware of what the Constitution says, you would admit that the courts have been enforcing the 1st Amendment’s speech and press provisions more in the breach than in the main. I know full well that the courts have carved out more than a few exceptions to the speech and press provisions. I cited one case (Abrams) and I could cite you other cases until the cows come home that show that. I’ll merely cite two others: U.S. vs. Schenck and U.S. vs. Frohwerk. And there are others.
Apparently, the benefit of having a written Constitution is lost on you: if the Constitution is not going to be enforced as written, why bother having one?
Libel immediately comes to mind. Whether it’s the New York Times or the Podunk Gazette, the press cannot libel individuals, organizations, corporations, etc.
Actually, yes they can. But they would have to pay (money) if they have been found to have libeled someone. But I will merely point out to you that libel is a tort created by the courts. There is no federal criminal aspect to libel. And the tort of libel was not created by Congress–remember the provision of the 1st amendment that states “Congress shall make no law”? Try again.
While you might not consider it a freedom of the press issue, (i) there long have been limitations on newspaper ownership (ii) (as well as television station ownership). (indicia added by me)
Regarding (i), there long have been limitations on newspaper ownership? That’s news to me. Other than the financial wherewithall to own a newspaper, what limitations are there? Citations, please.
Regarding (ii) “as well as television station ownership,” those limitations were founded on the fact that gov’t licenses broadcasters. In other words, gov’t limits the number of broadcasters who can operate in any given market, the frequencies on which they operate, the broadcast power, and other things. And the ownership limitations are based on that. We can quibble over whether gov’t licensing itself is a violation of the 1st amendment, but the ownership limitation is–or at least was–based on the fact that its licensing program limited competition, and that it would be unfair to the public for a single company, or only a few companies, to own all of the stations in a given market. Broadcasters like the fact that the gov’t’s licensing program limits competition, and, in return, they kind-of live with, although it should be clear that the big broadcasting companies have, in recent years, been pushing to loosen the ownership limitations.
There are more limitations on the electronic press than the print press, including equal time provisions…
I guess it escaped your notice that the FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Congress tried to pass it into law–it was previously just an FCC regulation–but St. Ronald, he of Reagan, vetoed the measure. So much for free speech, or access to the airwaves by the public that supposedly owns them.
raj, there are limitations on a single corporation owning newspapers and television stations in the same market. It’s a minor point, but if a television station cannot purchase a newspaper in the same market that’s a limitation on newspaper ownership.
Yes, I was aware that the fairness doctrine was repealed. The point of including it was that while in effect it placed limitations on the freedoms of the electronic press.
I agree, there’s nothing on the books prohibiting the press from saying what it wants to say. But since a civil law suit can impose substantial penalties on the press for libel, I’d say that’s a limitation on freedom of the press because Congress and the courts have not prohibited libel suits and judgments. Having been a publisher, I can tell you that publishers and their attorneys are often cautious about printing negative information about indiciduals, etc. Sometimes, much to the chagrin of reporters and editors, attorneys convince publishers to spike stories for fear of libel suits.
Despite ties to the business, I’d like to see some limitations on the press. Watching the (“former federal prosecutor”) bimbos on the CNN and FOX panels of legal analysts try and convict defendants before jury pools are even summoned and the first evidence presented in court, I prefer England’s restrictions on what its press can print or air about criminal cases. The way the oress, both print and electronic, has handled the Duke rape “scandal”, as just one example, is evidence of the growing irresponsibility of the American press.
#25 Trace Phelps — June 27, 2006 @ 2:36 am – June 27, 2006
there are limitations on a single corporation owning newspapers and television stations in the same market.
This is correct, but this is not what I had inferred you were suggesting when you said (in #23)
While you might not consider it a freedom of the press issue, there long have been limitations on newspaper ownership (as well as television station ownership).
I had inferred that you were considering newspaper ownership separate and apart from television station ownership.
I agree, there’s nothing on the books prohibiting the press from saying what it wants to say. But since a civil law suit can impose substantial penalties on the press for libel, I’d say that’s a limitation on freedom of the press because Congress and the courts have not prohibited libel suits and judgments.
Given that libel cases are–as far as I know–usually tried under state law (although some cases may be tried in federal courts under diversity jurisdiction) it is far from clear that Congress has the power to limit state libel laws.
Watching the (”former federal prosecutor”) bimbos on the CNN and FOX panels of legal analysts try and convict defendants before jury pools are even summoned and the first evidence presented in court, I prefer England’s restrictions on what its press can print or air about criminal cases.
The likelihood of that last happening is between slim and none. BTW, I share your concern about the “legal analysts,” but I’ll merely point out that I have far more concern over the apparent fact that both the prosecution and defense in criminal cases want to try their cases in the news media long before they ever get to court. This is clear from the prosecutions’ “perp walks” and news conferences on the one hand, and the defenses’ news conferences on the other. As far as I’m concerned, both sides should shut up until they get to court.