The United States of America vs. ‘New York Times’ Editor Bill Keller — New York Magazine — This story is wrong on so many levels. First why is the President trying to push around the media like this? Second (and more importantly) why did the NYT sit on a good story for a year before running it?? This is a good and interesting article.
For a meeting without historical precedent, the president of the United States had called the Times to the White House to personally try to prevent a state secret from appearing in print—an exposé of the National Security Agency’s efforts to monitor phone calls without court-approved warrants that the Times had held back on for over a year. Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. sat in a wing chair facing Bush, while Keller and Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman sat across from Bush’s lawyer, Harriet Miers, and national-security adviser Stephen Hadley. General Michael Hayden, the then-director of the National Security Agency, sat alongside Bush with a thick briefing book in his lap.
After stiff pleasantries, Bush issued an emphatic warning: If they revealed the secret program to the public and there was another terrorist attack on American soil, the Paper of Record would be implicated.
I don’t think the NYT should have run the story. The story didn’t reveal any governmental wrong doing or illegalities. Revealing the information helped the enemy. With reporting goes responsibility for the actions of the reporting.
The only reason a country based on freedom would want the knowledge of spying on its citizens without court approval hidden is because they fear the uprising of the citizens themselves.
Most criminals are paranoid enough to think they are being spied upon. If they don’t, then they are too stupid to cause any problems anyway.
Uhmmmmmmm. “No government wrong doing…”
“An exposé of the National Security Agency’s efforts to monitor phone calls without court-approved warrants”
The point of the story was government wrong doing.
What are the names of the US citizens that were being spied upon? Just curious since bac thinks that the government was spying on US citizens and would be some sort of uprising from hearing this news. By the way, when and where was the uprising? It seems I missed it.
First, it is debatable if the monitoring of OVERSEAS calls is legal or not but this isn’t really a good forum to debate it.
That aside there was a time when the news media in this country had its allegiance to this country and not just getting a story out. Obviously even the Times thought is was a point in question because they held the story for a year before publishing it.
It seems to be the general feeling here that anything a news organization uncovers should be printed and that the President shouldn’t use whatever sway he may have to talk the news media out of not running a story that the President feels could hurt the national security of the nation.
I suppose you guys also thing that embedded reporters should have been allowed to report the location of troops during the attack on Iraq?
I doubt this was the first time that a President has sat down with a news media leader and explained why something shouldn’t be published because it would damage national security. It is just the first time that the newsie decided that they knew better.
Gig — your copouts are too numerous to detail. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, some day.
Newspapers in the US have had the courage to point out criminal acts by the government for decades — just not in recent years. The chilling effect of the dodo on a white horse really works. And you think this is a first. Phaah!
cjohnson — sounds like reading the news online is too much of an effort — but, don’t let it get in the way of forming an opinion! There are more suits in process trying to get the Feds to release the names of who they spied on than you have toes and fingers. And backbone.
“What are the names of the US citizens that were being spied upon?”
For a start – Any U.S. citizen outside of the country and talking to anyone within the country would be included in the governments spying.
Also, anyone in the country using a phone to contact tech support based in a foreign country would also be spied on.
“By the way, when and where was the uprising? It seems I missed it.”
This IS the uprising. Thanks for participating.
Ignorance is NOT bliss! GWB is the proof!
– Frank
Of course the NYT was right to publish. It’s a sad fact that over the past five years or so the US media has been pretty spineless in the face of an administration apparently intent on riding roughshod over human rights and the legalities which still support them, by bowing down to the ridiculous assertion that to question what the administration is doing is traitorous. It’s actually the administration that’s the traitorous bunch and it’s good that both the media and the public are belatedly waking up to that fact. Only an open and free society can properly resist attack and part of that openness includes questioning arbitrary authority and pouring scorn on claims of omniscience. The media has an important part to play in that and it’s time that they were actually much more forthright and questioning.
This guy is a traitor and has blatant disregard for national security. He and his staff should be charged with treason.
If I were the editor of the NYT, I would would take that meeting as a challenge.
The ONLY responsible course of action for the Fourth Estate is to report every last detail they can dig up on this administration (or any administration).
Newspapers are not freaking cheerleaders. We have Fox News for that. Newspapers are watchdogs, and are not and should not be subserviant to anyone in the government.
John I think you are a god when it comes to the tech arena and I love reading your tech articles. But your left leaning political views and comments shows me a side of you that I would rather not know. How can a man so informed and knowledgeable of IT be so far off the mark in politics. Please John, for the love of God, stay away from political issues and focus on the things you are famous for.
Your fan, Jerry
No question a news organization needs to use discretion when deciding to publish a story that might impact the well being of the country. Likewise, when the government leans on the press, political interest should not be the driving force. In this case where questionably legal warrantless wiretapping doesn’t have the support of a majority of Americans, for the Times not to disclose the information would have been a fundamental violation of their professional and moral obligation to not conceal the truth. If the White House had been able to make a better case as to why publishing the story would harm national security, then the Times and Americans might have been persuaded to show more support for their cause. Making the request to not publish based on, “it’s harmful because we say so” justifications, didn’t work with the Times and it’s working less and less with Americans. National Security is too important for that card to be played haphazardly. If wiretapping is what is needed, then used the Times and the rest of the media to get out a message that stands on its own merit, and doesn’t appear to be simple political coercion.
cjohnson, if you re-read what I typed, you will see that I did not say there was spying and that there was an uprising. In fact, I didn’t even mention the USA. I stated that a country based on freedom and the fear of an uprising, so a country could be any country in this world and the fear of an uprising is about the fear not the uprising itself.
Is it just me, or do Jim, Gig, Tim and Jerry sound like the same guy?
This forum is obviously being astroturfed from time to time, fortuntely mostly by retards too stupid to come up with more than one style of writing.
#14…….to someone more or less in the middle on this subject…..you all sound like 2 guys….one from the left and the other from the right.
#5I suppose you guys also thing that embedded reporters should have been allowed to report the location of troops during the attack on Iraq?
That’s a strawman. No one is suggesting that reporters should or even want to report troop positions. That said, the military has certainly become state of the art when it comes to controlling media reports. Americans now need to turn to outlets like the BBC to get any idea of what is going on. Embedding was a grand failure.
I doubt this was the first time that a President has sat down with a news media leader and explained why something shouldn’t be published because it would damage national security. It is just the first time that the newsie decided that they knew better.
Comment by Gig — 9/12/2006 @ 8:30 am
In the case of this President, the “newsie” certainly knows better. The NYT did right and hopefully will continue to do right.
#8This guy is a traitor and has blatant disregard for national security. He and his staff should be charged with treason.
Comment by Tim — 9/12/2006 @ 9:30 am
Maybe on Planet Jingoism, but not here in reality.
Clearly many Americans, especially on the far right, have completely taken leave of reason and gone mad. The NYT is the paper of record for a damn good reason, and only an idiot dismisses it. Chest pounding bravodo bullshit and accusations of treason have supplanted public discourse. And what are they chest pounding for? It seems they are in support of allowing the president to elevate himself above the law and simply prosecute his war without any oversight at all. Congressional, judicial, and especially civilian oversight , it seems, is unfathomable to this White House.
Look… I don’t want to know the details of witetaps, etc. I don’t want to know who they watch or what they find. I don’t need to know. All I need is to know that when an American is under survailence, that a federal judge approved a warrant to that the process is above board and legal and that everyone’s rights are protected.
That isn’t an unAmerican thing to ask, and demanding accountability from our government isn’t treason.
For the record, you guys on the right are mind blowing. You raise a 20 megaton fuss over a blow job during your persecution of the last administration, but you are all bent out of shape over citizens questioning matters that actually affect American lives?
If the government is too inept to keep the secrets, then the press should expose not only the secrets but the ineptitude that let them out. Other than operationally immediate situations I just do not believe there should be that many secrets kept from the people.
Reading the article I get the impression these people spend more time catfighting than writing.
I think it is high time that we get all of the spying tools together, set up a big ‘spy lab’ and start spying on all the people who think there is nothing wrong with spying on people. Think you’d like that? Of course, you’re not a terrorist, so you don’t mind…how long until they start using it for other ‘offenses’ (in their little minds), such as being gay, being Democrat or, heaven forfend, not praying to their warped little view of Christianity (ain’t very Christlike, is it?)?
Seriously…spy on everyone who claims to not mind the illegal spying, and PUBLISH everything they say and/or do.
Maybe that would shut you idiots up.
#18
I’m with you.
Ah, the almighty high road traveled by NYT and the left. The sat on the story for a year, then released it because:
A) They no longer could live with the unbearable, moral burden of keeping silent, or
B) The timing was perfect for doing the greatest political damage to Bush?
“Eleven days after the meeting with Bush, the Times defied the president; the story, by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, was headlined bush lets u.s. spy on callers without courts. That same day, the USA Patriot Act was blocked in the Senate. ”
Your understanding of logic is as laughable as ever, Smith. Don’t forget the radioactive green elephants that fell from the sky that night.
Moss, do you ever post anything worth while on this blog? You seem to believe personal attack is highest form of debate. Where were you educated?
Ah, the almighty high road traveled by NYT and the left. The sat on the story for a year, then released it because:
A) They no longer could live with the unbearable, moral burden of keeping silent, or
B) The timing was perfect for doing the greatest political damage to Bush?
And where is the logic in that statement. I see conjecture, but no logic.
If the “moral burden” was so great, I don’t think they would have sat on it for so long. And if they were looking for the greatest political damage, then they were off by about 13 months late or 9 months early. Those green elephants have more relevancy then this illogical drivel.
The bad guys have complete privacy during these phone calls by speaking Arabic.
I say this based on the fact that 10 years after the blind Sheik bombed the World Trade centers for the first time; most of the Arabic papers from his house had still not been translated.
What are the names of the US citizens that were being spied upon? Just curious since bac thinks that the government was spying on US citizens and would be some sort of uprising from hearing this news. By the way, when and where was the uprising? It seems I missed it.
Comment by cjohnson — 9/12/2006 @ 8:17 am
Put my name down. I made and received several international calls during this time frame.
The uprising? Just look at who has a steady less then 1/3 approval rating. That is not an endorsement of Bushes policies. While I am not in favor of an armed uprising, if the Republicans again fraudulently steal this election then look for civil disobedience. Generally, Americans are a law and order people. The President not with standing.
Mr. H. Fusion, how do you know that you were being spied upon? That is the strange thing about this whole ordeal, people are comming unglued without knowing all of the facts of what has happened and what is happening. I am fully aware of all of the lawsuits surrounding the issue (And I know the number is a lot greater than my fingers, toes, backbone, and all of my belly button lint combined!) The courts are a very appropriate place for these issues to be decided. Another place where this will be decided is at the ballot box as well. Looking at polls, you will also see that the President has some support in this issue, as long as the wiretaps are limited non citizens and foriegn calls. However, there is no guarentee that anybody else in the White House would act any differently in this set of cirumstances. Further, aside from all of the pandering, there has been no pledges to abstain from this sort of intelligence gathering. All in all from reading the original NYT story on this, I am not all too sure why this is a big issue anyway, that is why the President made a big deal, and why the NYT publically exposed a program any sane person should have thought was going on for the past 12 years. I have not been a fan of some of the political manuverings (big miss steps) of this President. However, I can see the need for gathering intelligence data quickly in a time of war. Until somebody can show me any spying done outside the national security mandate (spying for political gain is clearly out of bounds, and if GWB is guilty of it, he deserves all condemnation he gets), please someone explain to me what the big deal is?
Fusion, you are living in a dream world. Just ask yourself, why did the NYT editorial board decide to publish when they did? They made their decision to publish eleven days earlier, so why did they wait until day the Senate was scheduled to vote for the Patriot Act? They certainly have made clear their animosity towards Bush; are we supposed to believe that their timing was coincidence? That they were too stupid to see the value of the weapon they held against Bush and to time its use for his greatest harm?
I am skeptical of all coincidences, particularly of those related to politics. Apparently you and moss reserve your skepticism only for Bush and Republicans.
Wait. Stop. Just HOW did the NYT article “help” the enemy? Do you mean they revealed the incredible secret the the US has several thousand people tasked with listening to the other guys? Does it mean that no one has noticed all those people working behind all those fences between Baltimore and Washington?
Please, guys. Just what did NYT tell the enemy that they didn’t already know?
If they are really that dumb, then maybe we should stop worrying.
#26, Mr. H. Fusion, how do you know that you were being spied upon?
How do you know I was not being spied upon? The NSA won’t reveal who was spied upon and who wasn’t. Yet, it would be hard to imagine that my telephone calls were not monitored in some way. How else would they know I was / wasn’t a terrorist.
The courts are a very appropriate place for these issues to be decided.
And a Judge in Detroit has already ruled that neither the President nor the NSA have authority to wiretap anyone without a court order. (ACLU v NSA) No Judge has given the President authority to warrantless wiretap.
Looking at polls, you will also see that the President has some support in this issue, as long as the wiretaps are limited non citizens and foriegn calls.
What polls? The ones that show he is still at 1/3 support of the electorate? Some support.
#27, Fusion, you are living in a dream world
And you are the bad part of that dream? You and your buddy Bush?
Just ask yourself, why did the NYT editorial board decide to publish when they did?
Why??? I don’t own any NYT stock. I don’t have any other vested interest in when, how, or why they make their decisions. They do not have to explain themselves to me. Why they picked that day is their business, not mine.
They certainly have made clear their animosity towards Bush
And Bush and the entire neo-con following have made their disdain for the NYT and Washington Post well known. Long before this came along. Neither paper owes the Bush administration anything. What both papers have made a purpose of is the truth. And in this case, the NYT was correct. Americans do not approve of illegal wiretaps.
That they were too stupid to see the value of the weapon they held against Bush and to time its use for his greatest harm?
If they wanted it to do the greatest harm, they would have published the story two or three days before the vote. If they really wanted to damage the Bush nazis, they would have published just before the 2004 election.
You talk about harm to Bush. What about harm to American Justice? Does that matter to you? What about the damage to American interests. It will be a very cold day in hell when Bush jr can get an international coalition 1/10 what his father did, regardless of the circumstance. What about all those wasted opportunities because the NSA wanted the FBI to chase down some stupid “tip”.
Bush screwed himself, don’t blame someone else for that.