Bill Keller Responds

Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, addresses their controversial decision to declare war on the United States publish information about a formerly secret program monitoring international funds transfers.

Wizbang provides the condensed version:

Dear Reader:

1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.

2) We have every reason to believe it was effective at catching terrorists.

3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.

Bill Keller

The longer version is simply a longer insult to the intelligence of their critics.  Hugh Hewitt puts the full letter through the mill, but let me extract a few choice offerings from Mr. Keller:

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.

In other words - Relax, dear Times Reader - we are getting flack from a bunch of right-wing cranks, but proper libs understand that the Times is simply contributing to the public debate.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

Yes, but we also passed laws regarding the disclosure of classified information, and it is entirely possible that these leaks (although presumably not the publication thereof) are criminal.  Does that aspect of the decisions made by We the People also count for anything in TimesWorld?

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

Tell me again whether there are any checks at all on this "power that has been given us".  Where is the accountability at the Times - can We the People un-elect Bill Keller?  How can we make him stop?

Or, if there is no accountability, is that really how we want to run our democracy?  Don't We the People have the right to decide that some national security secrets need to be kept secret?  Or can any bureaucrat with an agenda overrule his elected superiors? 

Let me re-phrase that - can any bureaucrat with an agenda with which the Times is comfortable overrule his elected superiors on national security issues?

FROM THE COMMENTS:

[Keller] mentions that this was an "agonizing" decision, but doesn't do the thing he is forever demanding of other public figures with power- he doesn't touch on what responsibility he will hold if he is wrong. He does't say what made it agonizing. Does he worry he made the wrong choice, and that people might die because of it?

He doesn't even bother to say how he will ever evaluate his own actions. What will tug at the corners of his brain and tell him maybe he made the wrong choice to publish this information?

Good point - just what is the feedback loop here?  My guess is that Keller keeps score by counting how many times he is lauded for his courage at cocktail parties in the Hamptons, but maybe it is not that scientific.

Comments

[crosspatch]

Arrogant, pompous, condescending, patronizing ... sounds like the NYT as usual to me. Remember back when AT&T had no competition?

[Daddy]

Mr Keller does not understand that he isn't playing games anymore, he is playing with people's lives.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

TM, I think Typepad is screwing up trackbacks. I see that there are two from me a minute apart. And, I just had a legit trackback to one of my posts and then got 4 in succession from the same source, each 1 min. apart. You can safely delete the one I sent that is timestamped 12:46.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

OT -- A quick off topic. WSJ Opinion Journal calls Murtha the "male Cindy Sheehan" but what is even better, the quote comes from a writer at the Pittsburgh newspaper that goes into Murtha's district. Great publicity for Diana Irey.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008569

[MayBee]

I read that letter to say, "I printed it because nobody has the power to stop me."

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

Yep, he is a man with a God complex and a total jerk to boot.

[PeterUK]

If Keller is simply reflecting the politics of his masters,how is that a free press?

I remember similar stories that were originated by the KGB during the Cold War and Vietnam,these were no more disinterested news reporting than are todays revelations.

[lurker]

Mac Ranger's post is too the point. His prediction is that "this boy is done" and he better get a lawyer.

He's definitely NOT happy with Specter.

He says that Gonzalez is NOT sitting on his hands and believes that this this recent leak may just be the final straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.

Perhaps as Ed Morrisey believed that Casey's classified briefing being a controlled leak, this controlled leak just might be the final straw. They were fully aware of NYT's desire to publish it so they planted and timed the Casey leak to see if NYT would publish it.

Speculation but would that help build the case even more?

I listened to Specter and King on Fox last night. Specter said he had been having discussions with Cheney and getting close to a resolution. Specter still doesn't understand all of it. Lordy, lordy, lordy, hate to see what this new resolution would be. We're better off withOUT a Specter resolution.

So Mac is implying that Specter should get himself a lawyer????

What's STFU?

Should read the short excerpt of Bill Keller's letter by Paul of Wizbang.

[lurker]

Check Patterico

Lorie Byrd's tired of the dems moving the goal post of troops reductions. I read about Barbara Boxer's anger at the Casey leak because in her mind, it matches exactly what the dems wanted in their resolutions. Actually, the Casey information took away the originality of the dems' resolution.

And the right-wing bloggers should jump in and say that this is NOT a retreat. We're winning the war and there are signs of improvement in many ways than one so we're no longer needed.

[Jane]

Glen Reynolds weighs in:

A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. Keller writes: "It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly."

The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom of the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry.

[Gary Maxwell]

Lurker

If you are not kidding around, STFU is Shut the F UP. Or "Keep your mouth shut about national secrets" most likely, I did not read the post you did.

[MayBee]

Keller has the chance to do some public introspection, and chooses instead to assert his right to do what he did.

He mentions that this was an "agonizing" decision, but doesn't do the thing he is forever demanding of other public figures with power- he doesn't touch on what responsibility he will hold if he is wrong. He does't say what made it agonizing. Does he worry he made the wrong choice, and that people might die because of it?

He doesn't even bother to say how he will ever evaluate his own actions. What will tug at the corners of his brain and tell him maybe he made the wrong choice to publish this information?

If there is yet another bombing in Bali, will Keller print an editorial acknowledging he had done the wrong thing?
If there is a bombing against US interests, will he wonder if something he printed helped the planners bring the plan to fruition? Will he publicly acknowledge that?

Did it make him feel any solidarity with Bush, this agonizing choice he had to make? Did he feel for a day what it might be like to hold such a monumental decsion in his hand? Do the right thing, and you are a hero. Do the wrong thing, and people die and the world blames you for it. Did it even for one second make him appreciate the life and death decisions our administration officals and intelligence agencies make?

If something happens after he's printed our national- and world!- security secrets, will he admit he did the wrong thing?
Or will it always be that someone else didn't do their job properly?

[jerry]

NYT: it is in the public interest to print this (unlimited wiretap authority)
WH: national security!

NYT: this is a threat to what we are as a nation (black prisons and torture authority)
WH: national security! national security!

NYT this is a vital intelligence secret?
(financial spying and... what?)
WH: public security!!!

NYT: this is a CYA cover up, an abuse of power, and you know it!
WH: national security!?

[MayBee]

NYT:National Security? No problem, print it!

NYT:Mohammed Cartoons? Too dangerous to print!

[Lurker]

"Lurker

If you are not kidding around, STFU is Shut the F UP. Or "Keep your mouth shut about national secrets" most likely, I did not read the post you did."

Thanks, Gary! A great advice for Specter! He needs to STFU!

If ya agree with Murtha's assessment that our US troops are far more dangerous than terrorism, better read Flopping Aces' post.

Mark Steyn says:

"Kerry gets all huffy if he thinks you're questioning his patriotism, so let's be charitable and assume the Defeaticrats are simply missing the point: For the rest of the world, what's at issue in the Iraq war is not the future of Iraq but the future of America. Can the world's leading nation still lead or is Kerry's Vietnam Syndrome "seared" (as he'd say) into its bones? Luxembourg can be Luxembourg. America doesn't have that option. In a nonpolar world, there's nowhere to redeploy to."

[Gary Maxwell]

Well at least the NYT can rely on dimwits to support them.

[Lurker]

Hahahaha! Rick Moran just did a great post about Bill Keller's letter...written while he was on vacation.

[Pofarmer]

Lie "(unlimited wiretap authority)"
Truth "no such thing"

Lie "(black prisons and torture authority)"
Truth none have been found and none has been given

Lie "(financial spying and... what?)"
Truth This is part and parcel of an old program that has been going on since at least the 70's.

There is no way to "debate" something framed in half truths and outright dishonesty. Ole jerry there is claiming things even the NYT's didn't.

Is there a particular reason that Libs trust the safegaurds in place when Hillary Clinton has FBI files in her office, but not when a conservative administration has been duly elected by the majority?

[Pofarmer]

Specter is trying to play both sides so hard he's lucky he doesn't get whiplash. I wish he would.

[SunnyDay]

Specter is trying to play both sides so hard he's lucky he doesn't get whiplash.

*********************

Good one!

[verner]

Remember the old joke?

Q. Will you sleep with me for a million bucks?

A. Why sure!

Q. What about twenty?

A. Who do you think I am!

Well, we've already determined that. We're just negotiating the price.

We have a mirror image of that situation here. If the leakers gave the information to an Al Qaeda operative for $1million, they would risk spending the rest of their lives in jail alongside Aldridge Ames. Yet, since it was passed off to Risen and Keller, Al Qaeda gets it for a dollar--along with a crossword puzzle.

The results are quite the same however.

So why isn't anybody in jail?

[Lurker]

Good question, verner. Let's hope Mac Ranger is right that Gonzalez is NOT sitting on his hands.

And, yuppers, Andy McCarthy had a word to say about the power of the press.

"They’re Just More Important Than You Are
Are any secrets more important than the New York Times’s sources?"

[Specter]

gang,

please frame the Specter comments correctly. LOL - let's call him SpecterLow or something like that. I about spit out my coffee when lurker said that Mac had it in for Specter....I thought...sh sh&&&t...what did I do to PO Mac? Then I realized who you were all talking about....slow this morning....

[Bruce Hayden]

I somehow think that the Administration is caught in a vice here. They want to go after the NYT, et al., but worry about the precedent that will set, and that that will have so much of the press ganging up on them. I think Gonzales would like nothing better than to have his hand forced here.

One thing that we have gotten out of our way, thanks to the Plame affair, is any idea that there is a Federal shield law. Trying to prosecute the leakers would allow the govt. to run right through the papers and pretty much destroy whatever is left of this privilege. The threat of this alone might bring the bigger papers to heel.

[Lurker]

There is a difference between privilege and the abus of privilege. In this case, NYT abused the privilege. NYT also made itself above the law.

Sorry, Specter.

[Jane]

I think you are right Bruce;

I don't think the administration can go after the Times. I can just hear the moonbat chorus about fascism and end of democracy and all that stuff. It's too much ammunition and would be picked up and adopted by moderates and independants as well. That old Jefferson quote would come back to haunt us over and over and over.

But I do think you can go after the leakers, and go after them hard. That would get to Keller et al because they would have to reveal their sources. Some moonbat commentator said the other day that Pinch and Keller would spend their lives in jail rather than give up a source. Let's test that.

[Lurker]

The Times and the mob

And a letter from Lt. Cotton

At Powerline

[Jane]

That's one powerful letter!

[SunnyDay]

It is possible that the leaker is know, but is so high up in government, that the case must be indisputable - the leaker must be caught red-handed, like MOM?

I think the effort could be ongoing, and just not yet complete.

Pressing the press would have serious backlash. There are other ways to catch the leaker.

I took particular notice, when John Warner, in response to an interview question about the troop with drawal plan, stated "That is a leak. We will not confirm it."

A deliberate leak? That's not a big committee.

[richard mcenroe]

But dammit, Pofarmer, Zengerle lied about the 22 WORDS!

[Jane]

Can someone email me the Brooks piece about Kos - if they have it handy?

Thanks

[richard mcenroe]

At this point, the NY Times is showing all the political sophistication of Larry Flynt. I don't think they can control themselves anymore; if it's framed as opposing Bush, they have to print it, compulsively, even if it's something they've demanded in the past.

[Barney Frank]

As long as people like jerry use "national security!" as a punch line and imply that it is never a legitimate answer liberals and the Democrats will not be taken seriously by most Americans.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

The DoJ should enter into the NYT building and walk out with every single piece of paper, disk, cd and computer. The DoJ should also demand the identities of all the leakers of every single story and if the NYT reporters and editors don't comply, jail them indefinitely.

Additionally there needs to be legislation that specifically eliminates Sullivan vs New York Times. That shield needs to be gone.

Time for the gloves to come off.

[Specter]

No prob lurker...it was more picturing Mac coming after me. That as opposed to LJ or Val who I don't think would frighten me for an instant as I have learned very well how to defend against fresh fruit (for the MP fans - LOL).

I wish letters like Cotton's would make it into the MSM. Just a few times where people would hear it and understand. It is such a two-edged sword though. NYT says they don't quash wht the public has a right to know - unless of course it reflects badly on them. Scary how much power they have - even if it is waning....

[MayBee]

But dammit, Pofarmer, Zengerle lied about the 22 WORDS!,/i>

Richard, I predict the next scandal will hinge on 27 words. By the time we have a scandal involving 32 words we will have reached the End Times.

[MayBee]

yikes!

[Gary Maxwell]

Anyone else think that Lt. Cotton's views ought to get as much coverage as Cindy Sheehan's? Want to bet on him even getting 1/10th? I got the the NO PASS line.

[clarice]

In about a day we should have enough material to go back and compare ehat the NYT, editor & publisher, Kleiman, Arianna, rtc. say wabout this actual leak of classified information and its affect on national security and the Plame case, shan't we?

[clarice]

Let me try again--this time in English:

In about a day we should have enough material to go back and compare What the NYT, editor & publisher, Kleiman, Arianna, Etc. say about this actual leak of classified information and its affect on national security and the Plame case, shan't we?

[Pofarmer]

Compare these last couple of leaks, which DID out secret programs, and operation details thereof, with the Plame "leak" which "outed" a maybe "covert" agent, while revealing no programs.

Wow, that's a lot of scare "quotes".

[Molon Labe]

I wonder if Keller would be so breezily indifferent to aiding terrorists if he had to ride the NY subway to work every day.

[Ralph]

My personal guess as to what is going on is that the White House really does want to tackle the MSM's abuse of power, but because of the very real issues of political power, is waiting until their case is ironclad.

At the same time the MSM, led by the NYT, is doing everything it can to expand its "privileges and immunities." They've done that quietly over the years --- they've represented the "Pentagon Papers" as giving them far broader prvilege than it actually offers --- it clearly says that they can be CRIMINALLY liable IF they publish.

I hope/think that Bush is using his poker playing skills. Wait until the case is ironclad, and allow the apparent hesitancy to bring legal action to encourage them to ever more reckless actions. That may be wishful thinking on my part, but I'd offer the Times latest story as an indcator that it might be what is going on. When even their own article admits that the program is legal, they've really undercut any legal arguments ab out having needed to publish it to inform the public of government "wrong doing."

By the end of the year, we'll know if I'm deep in fanatasy or not!

Thanks for all the great discussion as always.

[Carol Herman]

When the Pflame story was created, the media bought in. Team effort here, folks.

Maybe, Bill Keller knows something about congress critters? And, attorney generals?

Aschcroft recused himself. And, passed UNconstitutional powers onto Comey. We got Fitzgerald.

Now?

Fitzgerald isn't a "boy wonder." There's no perp walk for Rove. And, similar to the blinking eye (of Sauron) over at C-BS; the NY Times is actually trying to accomplish something with their story telling.

Printing info for terrorists is nothing new.

But dancing around naked, in front of the cops, trying their best to get arrested; maybe, they know something we don't know? THe coppers won't lay a hand on them!

In other words, to fight off Fitzgerald's mess, they've started another fire. And, you can guess about AG Gonzales all you want; but he's for Open Borders, and "getting along" with the slimes.

There ya go. The NY Times, in order to get rid of a problem, did this. It pleases the Bush haters no end to see Conservatives angry. While most of America goes to the beach for the summer months.

As to "bringing terrorists to justice." That's something Bush said that doesn't resonate at all. With anybody. It's way too long a process. And, it's proving to be a collosal crap shoot. Heck, to kill Milosevic they had to decide NOT to treat him for a heart attack. (And, when the going gets rough for Saddam, we're told he's on a hunger strike. But what he's really doing is getting word that some of his food is poisoned. And, he doesn't take that meal.) If life were only so easy.

Could this backfire? If it does, I'm sure they'll hire back Judith Miller, so she can go to the can, again. And, pinch can visit.

Or, they can go to their lawyers and burn even more of their money. The NY Times swims in profits. So would you, if you could sell tee-shirt space at $100,000 a pop. Then, you lie about your circulation numbers. And, even when people "cancel" all that happens is that they're not billed. The list, itself, with addresses on it, would never be made public. So, there's no outrages there.

The mafia, in New York, owns the distribution of the dailies. If you didn't know that; it was the only way the small newstands would pay anything for paper deliveries. Remember, the mafia plays by different rules, too.

What's sad is that there are parts of Bush's team that doesn't work. Gonzales is the "race card" in a system not designed by Bush. But one where genitalia, skin color, and lack of English speaking skills count for much. It could be worse. O'Connor could still be occupying her seat on the "big" bench.

And, nobody knows what's going on in Iraq, anyway. Our men are trying hard. But wars are covered by long distance. And, besides American money going down the sewer; Saudi money is, too. (But they have more of it. And, for us, we're taking it away from other stuff. Like building a security wall across our Mexican border.)

I laugh every time I hear we couldn't possibly build such a long wall; when I know what the Freeway/Thruway system did to much of small town America. It is convenient, though. And, isolated towns with horrid police and justice slime balls can be bypassed. Win-win.

So, since this is a ball in play how does it goe? Me thinks, the NY Times is moving the goal posts. There won't be anymore special prosecutors. And, if the congress-critters want to spot-light journalists, too bad for them. Because the whole crew of idiots from the WHite House would mosey on over. And, you wouldn't get answers to your questions. You might get a food fight, though.

All is lost when it comes to seeking "justice" the long way. Through lawyers. None of them make the kinds of soldiers that fight to win, anymore.

But it is a learning curve! Like what? Well, the next time out the only option to an American president will be ONE PLANE ONE BOMB. I never forgot Standing Wolf.

[Lurker]

"In about a day we should have enough material to go back and compare What the NYT, editor & publisher, Kleiman, Arianna, Etc. say about this actual leak of classified information and its affect on national security and the Plame case, shan't we?"

So shall we be waiting for your next article about this comparison table? Plame leaks? None. NYT? Significant as far as legal financial movements. This tells the terrorists not to use the legal banking system, which makes it more difficult in tracking down terrorists.

[Specter]

The other thing I find interesting is that the "J's" haven't been here much lately....

[Lurker]

Tim Champan

He implies there will be a Senate debate this week. I just emailed him.

Bush sharpely condemned NYT and LATimes:

"President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," he said.

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror...."

"Congress was briefed and what we did was fully authorized under the law," Bush said, talking with reporters in the Roosevelt Room after meeting with groups that support U.S. troops in Iraq.

"We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America," the president said. "What we were doing was the right thing."

"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do," Bush said. He said that to figure out what terrorists plan to do, "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."

And as for increasingly growing defense in going to war against Iraq, read Roy Robison, "Was Saddam Regime a Broker for Terror Alliances?"

So increasing proof that Saddam was a threat to the entire world. Pretty much destroys all arguments put forth by the dems.

[Lurker]

David Frum wants to know if we you heard one prominent Democrat or liberal defend the Times' decision to betray the secret of the Swift financial surveillance program?

If so, please email it in at NRO. I am curious to know whether the Times is unique in its arrogant disdain for the public safety and its willingness to condone the betrayal of national secrets.

[David Walser]

"I hope/think that Bush is using his poker playing skills. Wait until the case is ironclad, and allow the apparent hesitancy to bring legal action to encourage them to ever more reckless actions." - Ralph

I hope that's NOT what the Administration is doing. I just mailed off a letter to the Attorney General this morning, in the which I argued that we cannot treat this as an ordinary criminal case. How many more sensitive programs need be compromised before the Department of Justice takes action? In hopes of having a stronger case, a local DA should not allow a known rapist to rape just a few more women. Nor should DOJ wait for another vital secret or two to be printed in the NYT before taking action. In the case of the Times, we already have at least two cases where the Times published classified information after being asked not to by the government. Having gotten away with it twice, the Times could argue that the government had indicated by its inaction that the printing of classified information is lawful. If something is done five times in front of a cop, being prosecuted for doing it the 6th time smacks of being arbitrary and capricious.

[Neo]

Of course, if there is another attack and some parent's child is killed and it can be linked to financing that now by-passed SWIFT, I wouldn't be surprised to see one or more of these parents playing soccer on Broadway with the heads of Keller and Risen. I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by such a public display, but I could understand it.

[Bruce Hayden]

I should note that the Pentagon Papers case (again, involving the NYT) didn't precisely say that the govt. could prosecute the press. That is because that issue was not before the Supreme Court - and, thus, it was dicta. Pretty clear dicta, but, nevertheless, dicta.

One thing of interest here though is that some of the same people who are pushing Jackson's one Justice concurrance in the steel mill cases to bolster their claim that FISA overrules the President's Article II powers in the NSA international surveilance program, are also pushing that this five Justice dicta in the Pentagon Papers case has no weight because it is dicta. For me, five Justices opining that the govt. could prosecute the NYT criminally is stronger than a single Justice opining that whenever there is a conflict between statute and a president's Constitutional powers, Congress's power is at its highest ebb.

I should also note that the problem with the Pentagon Papers case is that it concerned an attempt by the govt. to get an injuction against the NYT publishing classified material - classic "Prior Restraint". And that is why all those opinions saying that the govt. could prosecute the NYT are dicta.

[clarice]

Good point about Keller and the subways. Reminds me of judges freeing convicted child molesters on the ground that theirs is an untreatable illness and then leaving the court by private car to the gated communities in which they live. PHEH

[Lurker]

David Whaler, I'm with you except for the fact that Gonzalez was forced to defend the NSA warrantless terrorist surveillance program as a result of the media hype.

Gonzalez, Hayden, and many attorneys have determined the legality of the NSA warrantless terrorist surveillance program and the public became convinced of it, then there's no more legroom for the media hype this time; thereby, giving Gonzalez the opportunity probably for the first time to prosecute this case.

We'll see.

[Carol Herman]

Arlen Specter won his match. And, he convinced the GOPsters to let him sit in the top chair on his committee; even though EVERYBODY knew better! Still "protocol" is also what drives the English to love their Tin Lizzie and her dogs. Corgies being the nicest part, though.

Any hoo. It's Santorum's seat that's up for grabs, now. Not a minor point for November's election cycle.

And, I'll bet money that the NY Times escapes a "special prosecutor" approach to printing secrets.

As a matter of fact, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, Russian spooks used newspapers, just like the NY Times. By calling in personal ads and paying for them. So in a sense, "way back when" ... newspapers would have had to stop publishing ... to keep the monsters from getting details.

How do you think cells are informed to start working? Well, perhaps today it's faster by e-mail. But it wasn't so long ago that newspapers themselves were cashing in on the traffic FOR information.

Then, again, the word was it was all "fish wrap." Or sheets to use when ya got a new puppy; and you tried housebreaking it. Didn't make a bad weapon, either, if you rolled it up and swung.

I'm really not impressed with the whores on 42nd street. Since they're still getting oodles of 9/11 money to build their new edifice. Such strange bedfellows ya get when you mix crime and powerful families with legislative privileges.

Bill Keller knew what he was doing!

He's lighting something called a "back fire" ... which is one way to control out-of-control forest fires from burning down completely. It's the summer! It's dry. And, things are in tinder box conditions.

To help you out IF Bill Keller didn't do this, things at the times would be coasting downwards without any brakes at all. Them there-are-the breaks. You want heroes? Look inside your box of Wheaties.

[Neo]

I don't think prosecution the NYT will do enough. I suggest the Executive branch (i.e. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department etc.) decertify their staff's press credentials.
With other sources, like AP etc., available to the Times, this will not stop them from reporting (which will undermine any court challenge), but it will cost them.

[Neo]

Just imagine the Times reporter fighting with Jim Guckert/Gannon for one of those "floating" press passes. LOL

[crosspatch]

The major media have deluded themselves and belive, I think, that they can create any reality they wish by simply saying so. They craft some picture of the world and publish it in their paper or they invent some "justification" for their actions and simply by stating it, they believe they make it fact.

It is an instutional psychosis. Since they believe that things are the way they craft them, they are actually living in the world they believe they have created and our arguments seem as alien to them as theirs do to us. It really is "Alice in Wonderland".

There is a feedback loop, but it is a positive feedback loop (not positive in the sense that it is constructive, positive in the sense that it adds to itself. Positive in sign ... as in additive) and any engineer will tell you that a positive feedback loop results in instability and a condition called "runaway" which eventually leads to "breakdown". Sometimes with spectacular result.

Rather then looking for things wrong with what they might be doing, their critical process seems to be about reinforcing their decisions. This is right because ... kinds of things. It appears to be all about rationalization. Like a microphone too close to the speaker, the distortion from the speaker is picked up by the mic and fed back to the amplifier where it is boosted again only to be again picked up by the mic and run through yet again until the resulting noise either chases everyone away or the entire system blows a fuse and shuts down.

They live in a fantasy world and reinforce their fantasy view. They push the envelope of it a little further out as each day goes by until their perception of the world is so far out on a limb of suppositions and distortions that at some point the weight of reality breaks that limb and down will come Keller, Sulzberger, et al.

[JamesH]

IMO the administration should wage a full court press vs the NYT. Convene a grand jury to investigate the various leaks. Subpoena the reporters and editors. They'll move to quash the subpoenas and generally try to drag out the case til Bush is out of office. Serve a search warrant on the Washington bureau and the NYT newsroom. Have the SEC investigate whether or not the Sulzberger family is fulfilling it's fiduciary duties to common shareholders.

[Lurker]

"I don't think prosecution the NYT will do enough. I suggest the Executive branch (i.e. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department etc.) decertify their staff's press credentials.
With other sources, like AP etc., available to the Times, this will not stop them from reporting (which will undermine any court challenge), but it will cost them."

Probably correct but they would still have access to the leakers.

Think a combined effort of prosecution, removal of security clearance, putting them on the stand to reveal their sources or jail them, stockholder fiduciary responsibility, boycotting, etc. would help far more than a single effort.

[Carol Herman]

Gee, Crosspatch, I didn't know there was a scientific proof analyzing "yes man" mentality. I knew it was a broken system. But one that you can actually measure, and name, WOW. And, it's given the name "positive feedback." What a neat touch.

Anyway, the NY Times knows we don't have transportable guilotines in this country. So nobody's gonna do the "Alice and Wonderland" trick of chopping their heads off.

They're team's in trouble, though.

And, Bill Keller, I gather is still "away."

How long will his vacation last If all he gets when he walks in the door is a subpeona?

What a long way ya have to go in search of "justice."

While up at the American Thinker, Someone named DUNN has provided an excellent background post on vigilantes. His point is that today's Baghdad, with them, looks a lot more democratic than ya think. I loved that article!

While on 42nd street business is so bad the whores are just in bed, now, with each other. I'm waiting for the 9/11 funds to be withdrawn from pinch. It would hit him in the pocketbook. About the only place those folks have nerve ends, any hoo.

[Jane]

>I don't think prosecution the NYT will do enough. I suggest the Executive branch (i.e. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department etc.) decertify their staff's press credentials.

I think that's a start. And as much as I think there will be backlash, I think they have to convene a grand jury to find the leaker, which will hopefully result in much deserved jail time for Keller.

[JohnH]

Keller says the Times was in discussions with the govt for several weeks and was asked not to publish.

If the govt had said "This is against the law and we will prosecute you to the fullest extent", I doubt that the Times would have gone ahead. Instead, the govt says please don't publish.

What is the strategy here? Let them publish and then prosecute? Let them publish because it helps the Dems dig a deeper hole for themselves? It will be useful to ask Dem candidates this Fall if they condemn the Times' actions.

Or do the lawyers say that to threaten prosecution when Keller comes calling is forbidden by the prior restraint decision?

Any legal advice here? Thanks

[crosspatch]

So nobody's gonna do the "Alice and Wonderland" trick of chopping their heads off.

The reference to Alice in Wonderland has more to do with "the looking glass" than the Red Queen. The media is supposed to, by and large, be a mirror of our society. It is to reflect what is happening in places we can't see by ourselves so as to give us a broader perspective. When it stops becoming a true mirror of events and would want to create a certain image, it's usefulness in broadening perspective is diminished and it becomes a tool for indoctrination.

There is a very odd world indeed behind that looking glass.

[Patton]

Memorable Quotes from
Absence of Malice (1981)

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Tell you what we're gonna do. We're gonna sit right here and talk about it. Now if you get tired of talking here, Mr. Marshal Elving Patrick there will hand you one of them subpoenas he's got stuck down in his pocket and we'll go downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury... Elliot? Jim?... Fine. All right, Elving, hand whichever one of these fellas you like a subpoena and we'll go on downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury.
District Attorney James A. Quinn: Gallagher's a government witness.
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Wonderful thing, a subpoena.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You had a leak? You call what's goin' on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: What'd you figure you'd do after government service, Elliott?
Elliott Rosen: I'm not quitting.
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You ain't no Presidential appointee, Elliott. One that hired you is me. You got thirty days.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: We can't have people go around leaking stuff for their own reasons. It ain't legal. And worse than that, by God it ain't right.

[crosspatch]

Keller says the Times was in discussions with the govt for several weeks and was asked not to publish.

What Keller *really* says is that the primary decision to publish was taken for no other reason than the government wanted to keep it quiet. He acknowledges that all parties agreed that it was legal and acknowledges that many argued for it not to be published and that he "agonized" over the decision but that the decision finally came down to the fact that the government was hiding this program from the people and he thought it would be best for the people to know that.

Inside that conclusion is a basic belief of Mr. Keller's that suddenly shines brightly. He is saying that any time this administration would want to limit the knowledge of anything, it is his duty to report it. He is saying that he believes that this administration is fundamentally bad and that it should not be allowed to keep any secrets of any sort. In other words, Bill Keller doesn't trust Bush, so we shouldn't either.

In Keller's walk-through of his thought process he mentions that monitoring of financial transactions was an important issue and people had the right to know about it. I agree that monitoring of financial traffic is important. It's the other part I have a problem with. You see, the administration apparently produced people that vouched for the legality and integrity of the operation, but that wasn't enough for Keller. He remained unswayed even when individuals from outside the administration were brought in to argue the case against publishing. Why might that be?

I believe the reason is because Mr. Keller thought that exposing this had the potential to damage the administration. I speculate that he mistakenly believed that there was a possibility that a groundswell of protest would arise from the masses and demand that the administration stop doing evil things. The thought probably never crossed his mind that the groundswell of protest might be aimed at The New York Times and indeed at Mr. Keller himself. That Congress might be calling for prosecution of the New York Times probably never entered his mind.

This is because he made a fatal assumption. He assumed that everyone else thinks the same as he does. He believes he has a balanced, centerist, perfectly acceptable world view and that "most people" share his idea of a reasonable view on things. He expects that most people would react the same way he reacted when he learned that the wicked Bush administration was watching financial transactions. He is so fixated on the Bush administration that he has lost any broader context and he assumes that we have too.

[regular]

well, well. look who hates America's freedoms, now.

[K Ashford]

Tell me again whether there are any checks at all on this "power that has been given us". Where is the accountability at the Times - can We the People un-elect Bill Keller? How can we make him stop?

You ever hear of the free market?

I think this outrage from the right is a hype. Does anyone REALLY think that al Qaeda didn't already SUSPECT we were monitoring financial transactions (whether we actually were or not)? So, now it's out in the open. Big deal. Nobody's going to "die" as a result.

Here's the bottom line: we choose to live in a country with certain freedoms, one of which is "freedom of the press". Does that make it harder to catch terrorists? Perhaps, but that is the cost of living in the greatest nation on Earth. But hundreds of thousands of Americans have died over the generations in order to protect those liberties, and I'm not about to change America just because some terrorists were successful on 9/11. My pants are still dry.

[SunnyDay]

change America??

Beg to differ.

[crosspatch]

K,

It isn't just that story on finances, it is also leaking military plans, leaking highly classified communications intercept progams ... not so much one single story, it's the pattern.

[_Jon]

We need to make a list of NYT advertisers and begin letter writing and boycotting.

They aren't making money through subscriptions.
Let's make sure they don't make money at all.

If the FedGov won't shut them down, let the Army of Davids have a whack at it....

[JAcitelli]

K-
Since whne does the NYT have a "right" to print classified information during a time of war?

[clarice]

K Ashford, Toquewille observed long ago that one reason American democracy succeeded when it proved a disaster elsewhere was the commonly understood and adhered to ethos. In other words, an effort to regulate every aspect of life is not possible. Democracy can only survive when people willingly accept and adopt standards of conduct-- such as honesty and patriotism--necessary for it to do so.
Publishing such details without a single good public interest to be served and many good reasons why not to, puts the NYT outside that pale.
Whether or not the law permits prosecution --and I think it does--the law certainly permits requiring the paper to divulge its sources, it certainly permits the Administration to strip it of its press passes, it certainly permits the Administration to ban all intel employees from having any contact whatsoever with the paper , and it certainly permits the citizens to take appropriate action.

I think this move was arrogant and dangerous and I hope the paper suffers greatly from its miscalculation.

[K Ashford]

"not so much one single story, it's the pattern."

Well, the "highly classified communications intercept program" wasn't classified. There was a law on the books about the program and how it was to be conducted. Yes, the specific wiretapping requests to the FISA court were kept in secret, but the laws governing FISA itself have been publically known for years.

Another observation: Why is the outrage at the NYT? How come nobody is expressing anger at the leakers (who, it seems to me, ARE legally culpable and have no First Amendment defense)?

[crosspatch]

We need to make a list of NYT advertisers and begin letter writing and boycotting.

A list of who DOESN'T advertize in the NYT would probably be shorter. Practically every single national company in the US advertizes there at one time or another. Certainly anyone running a national ad campaign in addition to just about every local concern.

They're probably making more from web advertizing than print by now. Don't visit their website. Ever. They get paid just by displaying the ad on your computer screen.

[boris]

Big deal. Nobody's going to "die" as a result.

That's what they said about the Gorelick wall before 911.

[paul]

"The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest."

If the administration had denied the program, he might have some merit to his argument. He is basically stating that it is the role of the press to be opposed to the government in regards to counter-intelligence. If there is a case from which he draws the conclusion that the press and the government have been opposed from the outset, I'd like to hear it.

The most important issue I take with Keller is that he shrouds himself, and his paper with the title, 'the press'.

I sincerely doubt that you speak for the press, Mr. Keller, but have no doubt that you speak from your own self-interest first.

[TallDave]

Every time a terrorist bomb goes off from here on out, remember to play this public service message alongside the media coverage:

This moment was made possible by a grant from Bill Keller and the NYT.

[K Ashford]

"Since whne does the NYT have a "right" to print classified information during a time of war?"

It's in the Constitution. Now, to paraphrase Fred Friendly, there is a difference between (a) what one has the right to do and (b) the right thing to do. And I am sensitive to the argument that the NYT may not have done the right thing. However, they had a right to do it.

"Democracy can only survive when people willingly accept and adopt standards of conduct-- such as honesty and patriotism--necessary for it to do so."

Honesty, indeed. Some might argue that democracy cannot survive when the government acts in shadows and behind closed doors. Frankly, I don't know how a government "of the people" can hope to survive when "the people" are kept uninformed and ignorant. That's Soviet Russia sh*t, and we ought to know better. It's a tradeoff we made 200 years ago, and -- in the long run -- a good one.

[clarice]

I suggest you read Schoenfeld's excellent essay on the law. I think you and Keller have misread it.

[Another Bob]

K Ashford | June 26, 2006 at 01:41 PM:

You are aware there are numerous, completely Constitutional, restrictions on the freedoms of speech and press?

[TallDave]

K. Ashford,

No, the press doesn't have the right to publish national security secrets. There's several laws against it.

Frankly, I don't know how a government "of the people" can hope to survive when "the people" are kept uninformed and ignorant.

Right, the NYT should immediately publish all the nuclear launch codes so we can debate them. We need to be informed! Democracy cannot survive if the people are ignorant!

[Specter]

K,

You are living in dream world. The government has a right to keep secrets. What - should we have told the Russians, Germans, and the Japanese all about the Manhattan Project? And maybe we should just tell them all the codes we use in transmitting sensitive data, right? I'm sure the NYT would love to publish that stuff and you seem to advocate it.

[boris]

democracy cannot survive when the government acts in shadows and behind closed doors

And this started when ??? Like maybe the year zero. Seems democracy can survive.

Blatant lame justification to dispense with democracy and ignore the results of elections and laws.

[paul]

If I were a judge, I would have no problem authorizing a wire-tap on many of the NYT reporters phones, if the request was in the effort to find who is leaking like a sieve.

[P. Froward]

The NYT is The People. Just ask 'em.

K. Ashford, are you seriously trying to claim that this administration invented government secrecy? Our government has always had secrets. All governments do. During WWII, we didn't reveal our knowledge of Japanese military codes. We didn't tell the Germans when we planned to invade Normandy, either. No doubt you're outraged by those awful Soviet-style outbreaks of secrecy. If you'd had the chance, I suppose you'd have sold secrets to the Nazis and felt smug about it. As for the Constitution, are you trying to claim that laws against espionage are unconstitutional? I'd like to see you argue that one in court.

According to your claim that democracy is utterly destroyed by the actual conduct of real government in the real world, democracy has never existed at all. Or do you just have a preschooler's knowledge of history?

[David Walser]

"'Since whne does the NYT have a "right" to print classified information during a time of war?'

It's in the Constitution." - K Ashford

K, as you know, the 1st Amendment does not grant unrestricted freedom to the press. You can't shout "Fire!" in crowded theater, can't knowingly and maliciously print harmful falsehoods about a public figure, etc. Nor, do I think, can you print classified information. In the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court said the government could not engage in prior restraint to prevent the publication of classified material. However, the majority opinion also said that one could be criminally prosecuted AFTER publishing the material. That may have been dicta, but it's the best indication we have on the question of whether the Constitution bars the government from punishing someone for publishing classified information.

As for why no one is mad at the leakers, who said we are not? (I am.) We don't know who the leakers are. We do know who's publishing the material. By way of crude analogy, assume there is a rash of burglaries in your neighborhood and you learn that a local pawn shop is knowingly buying and selling the stolen property. Wouldn't you be upset with the pawn broker, in addition to the thieves? The NYT and the other papers are profiting from stolen property. Even if the Constitution does allow it; they aren't occupying the high moral ground in this argument.

[Bruce Hayden]

K Ashford

I would suggest that there is a big difference between FISA, passed in the 1970s to facilitate tapping of phones, etc. of the Soviet Union and the PRC, and the international surveilance program at the NSA started somewhere around 9/11/01. Indeed, I think that it is almost silly to suggest that the FISA statute on the books revealed the NSA program.

[crosspatch]

K,

The freedom granted by the constitution is for people to be able to a press. Not for certain publishers to be able to print whatever they want.

In other words, freedom of the press means that the government can not regulate who may and who may not have a printing press ... a newspaper ... a blog. It does not mean that a person with such an instrument may publish information damaging to the country. They are still citizens and restricted by the same laws than any other citizen is.

[crosspatch]

The freedom granted by the constitution is for people to be able to a press.

Should be

The freedom granted by the constitution is for people to be able to own a press.

[charles austin]

Wizbang's Reader's Digest abridgement of Mr. Keller's letter that concludes with "screw you" to the American people is remarkably similar to Kos' "screw 'em" in response to the fate of the four American contractors in Fallujah.

Things that make you go hmmm...

[verner]

K. Ashford.

The government has ALWAYS had state secrets. Even Jefferson, our great "libertarian" sent the fleet to destroy the Barbary pirates before he even bothered to tell congress.

And, take our greatest president.

Abraham Lincoln, the man who saved the Union, simply threw confederate sympathizers in jail without a hearing. Distasteful, but probably a good idea. There were huge numbers of Confederate spies in the North. They even had Confederate "insurgents" in NYC trying to figure out how to burn it down-and with all the anti-war democrats running around up North...

Ah, the more things change.

I think that Bill Keller is the Julius Rosenberg of American Journalism. And if people die as a result of his arrogance, then he has blood on his hands.

[SunnyDay]

K probably isn't old enough to know whether anything has changed or not. ;)

[verner]

Exactly Crosspatch. It the press is immune from breaking the law, that would make the supra-constutional. That would be insanity.

And to adhere to the quackery that there is no cessorship in War! Jeez. In WWII, American service men and women couldn't even send a letter home to mom without it being censored. And guess what. Somehow the Republic survived.

The fact of the matter is, in all these national security leaks--they have not been able to prove harm to a single person--yet they have cost the government, and therefore the taxpayers millions--maybe billions, and gutted our ability to protect ourselves.

If Gonzales won't go after them, maybe we should consider a class action civil suit to try and recover damages from the slimy sluts.

[lurker]

Clarice, I've a feeling that NYT and LATimes are already suffering from their miscalulations.

"Honesty, indeed. Some might argue that democracy cannot survive when the government acts in shadows and behind closed doors. Frankly, I don't know how a government "of the people" can hope to survive when "the people" are kept uninformed and ignorant. That's Soviet Russia sh*t, and we ought to know better. It's a tradeoff we made 200 years ago, and -- in the long run -- a good one."

Funny. There's such a thing called "Security Clearance". There's also such a thing called "Non-disclosure Agreement". There's such a thing called "Proprietary Data".

[lurker]

"

Exactly Crosspatch. It the press is immune from breaking the law, that would make the supra-constutional. That would be insanity.

And to adhere to the quackery that there is no cessorship in War! Jeez. In WWII, American service men and women couldn't even send a letter home to mom without it being censored. And guess what. Somehow the Republic survived.

The fact of the matter is, in all these national security leaks--they have not been able to prove harm to a single person--yet they have cost the government, and therefore the taxpayers millions--maybe billions, and gutted our ability to protect ourselves.

If Gonzales won't go after them, maybe we should consider a class action civil suit to try and recover damages from the slimy sluts."

Verner, we'll have to find a lawyer to handle a class action suit. But I don't think there would be any problems finding a lawyer....

Patterico
McCarthy
Cotton
Feldman

Who else?

[clarice]

Actually, I think a class action suit would be a hard row to hoe.Let Patterico do it.

Better yet, let Gonzales do what his job requires and institute criminal proceedings against the leakers and the NYT.

[Rick Ballard]

Lurker,

It ain't quite that simple. Although a class composed of wounded vets and the families of those killed in action would make part of the problem disappear.

IANAL but I bet there is a theory that might be applicable - if you can be sued for a fall caused by ice on the sidewalk in front of your store then you should be able to be sued for publishing information that may have led to deaths and injuries.

[lurker]

Dang!

New York Times indictment by Thomas Lifson but I can't find Holtzer's indictment published online (probably not a real indictment but something to reflect his opinion).

Clarice, heard anything new from DOJ? Do you know if DOJ will do anything about it?

[lurker]

Ah...just found it!

INDICTMENT AGAINST THE NEW YORK TIMES

Not really an indictment....but...

[lurker]

Clarice!!

New Haditha Video