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.
You argue against positions I didn’t take and against words I didn’t write. You claim my statement lacks all logic, and then justify your claim by admitting your own ignorance?
“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.”
So I guess you didn’t have any rationale for attacking my post; it was just an ad hominem from someone defending an institution that serves as standard bearer for his cause.
#29,
We can ping pong that back and forth all night, How do you know / How you not know But I would ask if you have any negative backlashes conducted towards you from any government agency? Or has your life not been adversly affected since you engage in high risk activities? But if you are truely paranoid about someone listening to your conversations there are ways to communicate overseas that nobody would be able to snoop through. This goes beyond government spying too, just look at the current HP case, so you truely don’t know who is listening.
As for the ACLU v NSA case, it is true that the judge ruled that the wiretapping were unconstitutional, but she also stayed her own ruling until the case could be appealled. So this rulling can be overturned by a hire court, and the case she did not even rule on releasing any names that may have been involved in any spying. So the program is still in place, and nothing has changed for the moment. However, it does show that the Justice System is working, however slowly to settle the issue.
Finally, at this site about 1/3 down the page lists the results taken from an ABC poll which states, “What do you think is more important right now — for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy; or for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats” Which shows a steady 65% approval to investigates threats, even if it means stepping on a few feet. I will agree that the Presidents overall approval is low, but in regards to this issue, people do seem to agree with the President.
I am still wandering (it really is a honest question), Why is this such a big deal, especially in the middle of fighting a war?
cjohnson, your spelling is wandering but I shouldn’t cast any stones about that being a chronic mis-speller myself.
Seriously the reason this is such a big deal all comes down to GW’s favorite word: freedom. We send our sons and daughters off to risk their lives in the name of freedom while we continually reduce our freedom here at home. Just in my 5 year old’s lifetime we have lost the assumption that if we pick up the phone and make a call that the government isn’t listening. That’s freedom?
Giving up our freedom is the most ironic possible way to fight those that “hate our freedom”. That we even have to have this discussion is very sad. If there is evidence that someone is up to no good get a subpoena. If not, leave them alone. If that makes a terrorist attack more likely (bs – but I’ll play along) than fine. That is the sacrifice we all have to make – for freedom.
Hmmmm. How did the NYT hurt America’s efforts? Seems that publishing a report detailing the existence of one of the strongest tools we’re using to try and thwart these bastards could be deemed a problem. Do ya think that maybe, now that this info is public, thanks to the NYT, that Al Queda (and whomever else) might just change how they conduct their financial affairs. Gee, thanks NYT, you just made our job harder, but at least you got the “scoop”. By the way, THIS is the only one of the 911 commission’s recommendations where the administration recieved an “A” grade on their response. But thanks to the NYT, that’s up in smoke. And that, dear debators, is a clear, defined case of treason. Subverting our plans and giving aid & comfort to the enemies. Comfort? Who knows. Aid, gee, I wonder……
Now, regarding the “domestic spying”, which is a bullshit title, if you jackholes on the left would merely read anything about it, you’d see that it’s not EVERY international call that is surveiled. So, when you’re talking to Gus about your tech support issue, unless Gus is a known terror suspect, the call isn’t being spied upon. Yep, that’s right, the program only goes into effect when one end of the call is someone who is a known terror suspect, either action or support. In other words, if you’re talking to anyone who happens to be Al Queda, even if you don’t know of their affiliation, you SHOULD be listened to. But then again, I supposed you think that’s a lie, because Bush is sooooooo evil, he wants to spy on us all. He gets his jollies listening to us. It’s curious how you left wing dolts will claim, on one hand, how stupid this administration is, but when it serves your purposes, apparently they’re smart enough to pull off some pretty nefarious things! Wow! Pick a position and stick with it, please!
BTW – ever hear of a little program called “Echelon”? Look it up. Yer boy Bill wasn’t so pristine in the spying arena either. The difference here is that, because of a loophole, we could have other nations spy on us while we spied on their citizens, then trade the info. Anybody could be listened to. Anybody, not just terror suspects.
And why wouldn’t Bush wanna go through the FISA to get the court orders for surveilance? Hmmmm, I dunno. Remember a guy named Zacarias Moussoui? The FBI went through FISA to get an order to search his laptop, pre 9-11, but FISA denied it, despite the mountains of evidence this guy was a terrorist and up to no good. Hell, even France said he was a terrorist, and France is soft on everybody! Turns out, there was info on there detailing every aspect of the plan, save for the exact date. That one thing alone could have averted 9-11, but a court got in the way, as they so often do…
So, I don’t blame Bush for saying screw the FISA court. In fact, no court should be involved in this. It’s NOT a law enforcement action. The left treated it as one through pretty much the entire 1990’s, where’d it get us? Whether you wanna believe it or not, war isn’t an issue of legal proceedings. Treating it as such is one sure way to ensure defeat.
Issues like this tend to bring out hyperbolic comments both from the left and the right, which really aren’t very productive. Too often each side preaches to the choir and nobody’s mind is changed, because actual reasoned debate ends up stifled.
That said, comments like Steve’s (#35) worry me. I don’t believe the sky is falling because of the NSA domestic spying issue. I don’t doubt that the only calls monitered are those involving suspected terrorists. However, I take issue with the idea that checks and balances should simply be abandoned because “this is war”.
Let’s face it, people are fallible. There is certainly _potential_ for abuse in wiretaps conducted without a warrant. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to worry that if a system like this becomes commonplace, the potential for abuse will increase.
Now, the FISA courts may well be broken. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to try to fix FISA or create a new system that still enabled the government to fight terror, but involved at least some checks and balances? Time certainly is of the essence, but this program has been in effect for some time. Alternatives could have been developed by now.
The attitude that some people possess that anyone or anything critical of the government’s method of fighting terror must be considered un-American and even treasonous is very concerning to me. This seems to imply that public debate and dissent are inherently treasonous.
For example, Gig says in comment #5: “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.” Isn’t it possible that the NYT considered the story important for the American public to know, even if it was critical of the country’s present leadership?
Essentially, I’m uncomfortable with the idea that a U.S. president should be considered above criticism or rebuke. There is a reason why presidents can be (and have been) impeached and have limits on there power. (I am NOT suggesting the current president should be impeached, just to be clear.)
After all, the American federal government has three branches of government. A story arguing that one particular branch of government may be increasing its own powers and (potentially unlawfully) eroding others’ powers is a story potentially very much in the country’s interest.
It is possible that a story like this could hurt the government’s ability to fight the war on terror. But I do believe there are legitimate concerns about the legality of this program and its potentially negative effects on civil liberties. Can terrorists use the U.S. tradition of openness and public debate on important issues to their advantage? Potentially. But we can’t destroy the things the U.S. stands for in the name of protecting it. And, in the end, I think public debate on issues like these will lead to those in power making better decisions that will lead to better (and hopefully ultimate) success in the war on terror.
Finally, about comments like Jerry’s (#11), arguing that John should without from commenting on politics or discussing his political beliefs: Telling someone else they should be allowed to debate with you (or should refrain from doing so out of good taste) is a very poor way to strengthen your own position. Can there be anything less American than suppressing the right to political debate?
I don’t have a double standard here. I pointed out some comments here that I think were badly reasoned, but that doesn’t mean I’m arguing they shouldn’t be said. I just wish the quality of debate on political issues could be raised.
Just to be clear, the part about Steve’s comments (in #35) that worried me was the wiretapping portion.
The story on international banking surveillance is one I’m much more ambivalent on. I still think it’s hyperbolic to call the NYT “treasonous” for it, but it may well have been an issue of very bad judgment on the NYT’s side. (Still, people involved with that program must be concerned with it to be willing to give such information to the NYT.)
To #36
Thank you for you well thought out response. I (perhaps surprisingly to some) agree with a lot of the points you made. I would, however, like to respond to some of your points:
Regarding the “spying thing”, I don’t believe there should be *no* checks and balances. If there were none, then in the future someone would most certainly abuse it and turn it into some KGB-like operation, we can’t have that/ That being said, I just don’t know what the correct method would be. If Bushy, or someone at the NSA, or whomever feels the court system is largely run by activist judges, then I agree, the thing to do may not be to subvert it, but to fix it. Problem is, in the time it takes to do this, who knows how far this terror thing may have gotten.
Given the testimony of some officials during the Senate hearings on this very issue, including those by some of the very judges who actually drafted FISA in the 70’s, Bush’s actions were in no way illegal. Couple that with the fact that noone in Congress is calling for a halt to this program, and it all just spells political witch hunt.
That said, I do feel there need to be checks and balances, I just wish I knew the right answer of how.
I don’t feel any president is, or should be, above rebuke. No way, no how. And I have plently of issue I wish I could debate with ol’ Georgy personally, but this isn’t the discussion for any of these. I’m not a Bush nut swinger, based on some of his actions/inactions, I doubt I’d vote for him, were he able to run again. But it gets really old hearing the same old suspects arguing for the same old pacifist response to threats we’re facing, when such policies have failed miserably and it’s a matter of our safety. To that end, I apologize for the name calling I did in my previous post.
Regarding the three branch system – I agree whole-heartedly, however, another one of those branches has been trying to overstep it’s boundaries for years now, legislating from the bench in a partisan manner, which may be why Bush decided to bypass them for this.
Regarding the NYT – let’s be clear here, they’re not the ones who broke the wiretapping issue, their responsibility is for blowing the whole financial surveilance thing. That’s what I’m targeting them for, and yes, it is treasonous. They were warned that, by publishing the story, they would be aiding the enemy, and went with it anyhow. Yeah, they sat on it for a year, then ran it. To do so, publishing the NSA’s methods, is in direct conflict with the best interests of this country. Knowing every little detail of how the gov’t is fighting terrorism isn’t really our right. There are a lot of National Security secrets, and rightfully so. The NYT rinning this was pure political BS, to which they must be held accountable.
To #38 – While burying your head in the sand about the threats we face may, indeed, help you to feel better, it doesn’t go a long way to make us, as a country, safer. Go ahead, make funny little comments about me and the “scary brown people”. Go ahead. Belittle the threat. But it may do you well to actually look around – the crap hasn’t stopped., and it’s not just against the United States. How about Madrid. How about the British plot just recently uncovered. The London subway bombings. The Bali bombings. It’s going on everywhere, sir. This kind of ignorance is responsible for the position we’re in now. I hope it doesn’t take more attacks for you to wake up and smell the coffee.