Treason, The Press and Waking Up
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Media, The War On TerrorismA couple of days ago I did something I didn’t want to do. I banned a frequent commenter from the site for suggesting that a NY Times editor should be handed over to terrorists. Why was he so angry that he said something like this? Well, because the NY Times printed information about the government searching through our bank records.
Those comments got me thinking, particularly about how many people are crying “Treason!” Not only in the right-wing blogosphere, but also in supposedly fair and balanced media. As I considered that, I realized what those people are actually wanting is for journalists to be killed for the “secrets” they’re reporting. Yes, death.
So I’m going to ask a favor. If you’re commenting here and calling journos traitors, treasonous, etc., please stop. I’m just going to say right here and now that you won’t get banned for calling somebody a traitor, but I’m pretty much going to consider you a hack and ignore you from here on out. And I’d encourage the rest of our readers to do the same. We have a free press in this country for a reason and the founders made sure to single them out for special status. They realized, as everybody here should also, that in order for democracy to flourish, you needed checks and balances inside AND outside the government. There are few things more vital to a democracy than a truly free press.
And yet we have Dennis Hastert saying, “Loose lips kill American people.” Exactly who is being killed Mr. Hastert? I know it’s becoming increasingly popular to blame the media for how Iraq is going, how the War on Terrorism is going, etc., but this is getting ridiculous. We have Senators calling for press credentials to be pulled, and they’re even using the “T” word. And yes, they know what it means too.
Think I’m being dramatic? Well, just check out what Melanie Morgan, a right-wing pundit, said recently about the editor of the NY Times…
“If he were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber.”
What…the…hell? We can’t allow ourselves as a nation to allow these hacks to take our free press away. And yes, these people are HACKS of the worst kind.
Listen, this trend REALLY worries me. If the extremist right-wing media and Republican politicians get their way, and they actually have gotten a lot of their way this past decade, I think we’re going to quickly slip into some weird Orwellian nightmare that we’ll have a lot of trouble extracting ourselves from. Now we’re going to censor the media for simply reporting that the government is searching through our records? Are you kidding me?
These revelations, coupled with those I spoke of yesterday about David Addington’s questionable interpretations (or lack thereof) of the Constitution, add up to a serious breach of trust on the part of our current leadership. There’s nothing patriotic about silencing the press. Nothing. It weakens our nation. Period. That’s not leadership. That’s simply trying to create a situation where your methods can’t be questioned. And if anything is Unamerican…that’s it.
I don’t really know how to end this, but when you hear these things what goes through your mind? Are you as concerned as I am? Do you think this is just bluster without backup? Talk to me people, because I’m a bit freaked out here.
This entry was posted on Sunday, July 2nd, 2006 and is filed under Media, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:58 am
Congress and the President should have declared war after 9/11, instead it was “authorized use”, no different than Korea or Vietnam. If we had declared War then it would probably been treason and punishment should have been forthcoming. However, Congress and the Pres. did not formally declare war, so the press can act as cowardly as the Congress and the Pres.. Its tit for tac. But you guys hide behind the first admendment far to much. Yet when someone criticizes or expresses their opinion you ban them. Me thinks you deserve what you get. Unban the post and I might reconsider. You are as guilty as the next person, bud. You want to control your space. So whats wrong with me wanting to control mine.
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:26 am
Dallas, you and others who advocate everything from inflicting pain to gas chambers for the media or any individual who expresses opinions with which you disagree seem to forget that ALL is opinion, including your mighty truths. Turn the hostility down a notch, and you may very well find most people don’t really want to control you. Can’t hurt…
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:44 am
This is my first visit here, and I unimpressed. I do agree with your dislike of treason accusations. I think you are missing the point when you say “We have a free press in this country for a reason and the founders made sure to single them out for special status.”, the founders did not single out “the Press” for special treatment. The founders gave all of us the right to do what you are doing, to publish. There is not only Freedom of Speech, but the Freedom to have that speech heard by many (to Print). There are no special rights for newspapermen simply because they use old technology to distribute their speech.
Some speech is banned, hate speech, inciting violence and slander are examples, so is revealing classified information. I agree that Keller does not sink to the level of treason, but what he did was wrong.
You also asked “Exactly who is being killed Mr. Hastert?â€Â? Is a serious question? Our troops are being killed; civilians all over the world are being killed. Explosives do grow on trees. Huge payments to the families of “martyrs” do not magically appear. Eliminating the financing of our enemy is the second most effective way to stop them.
This program was legal; I have not read anywhere that has disputed that. The program was effective; the list of captured terrorists proves that. It also had deterrent value, as long as the financers of terror were being discovered fewer were likely to donate because they didn’t know how we knew. Now that they know how to avoid discovery they can resume sending money. That money kills people.
The most effective way to stop the enemy is the press. This is not an industrial war. The military cannot win this war. This is a media war. The enemy will continue to recruit martyrs until we discredit their cause. Until our free press is willing to stand up and say yes, we are better than them and explain why we will continue to see death every day on the news.
I agree with your dislike of hyperbole, but I think your defense of an institution, which did in this case aid our enemies, is not objective.
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:46 am
I agree that the accusations of treason are going too far and do violence to the clear definition of the crime in the constitution. There is, however, a strong possiblity that SWIFT will stop cooperating with the U.S. government as a result of the publication of the program by the New York Times. This cooperation violated no American laws, although it may have violated European ones. The Times, by publicly exposing the program, may have shut it down. If this doesn’t happen, no harm done. If it does, though, the Times will have, by their actions, made it easier for terrorist groups to finance their activities without detection. IF that happens, however, as was entirely predictable before they published, what do you think should happen?
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:48 am
The lefties’ll getcha if you don’t watch out
In my garden, beneath the branches and deep within the damp shadows, someone is watching me. In the night, I hear whispers in the rooms of my home — never quite clear enough to discern words, but they’re talking about…
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:09 am
The Republican leadership is not serious in their accusations of treason. It’s a cynical a tactic as their trying to get the flag burning amendment passed or their argument that Kerry didn’t deserve his medals. They’re swiftboating the NYTimes, creating a controversy where there is none to divert attention from their own weaknesses–that’s all there is to it. It’s just a tactic to keep the Times and other media on their heels–gets them to think twice before doing their job in the future. The only people who sincerely believe it’s treason are the conservative rank and file who like Pavlov’s dogs salivate when they hear their master ring the bell.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:24 am
I agree with Jack Whelan, to an extent. Those most exercised about this are being whipped up by politicians and pundits for electoral purposes.
However, I think that Justin’s post does contain a misunderstanding about press freedoms. The press is not some special prelature established by constitutional fiat, no matter what Bill Keller insists.
What bothers me most about the blogowhatever is that it allows cranks to pop off on all sorts of issues. Yeah, somebody wants Mr. Keller shipped off to Talibanville while commenter #4000000 on dKos calls for some Bush apparatchik or another to be hung from a lamp post. But we are all more sensitive to those attacking our “side” when we should be more concerned when someone with whom we agree turns into a screaming harpy.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:34 am
I think Seb is about on target. If the Swift consortium refuses to co-operate further, harm will have been done. If not, then not.
My guess is that European governments will not push Swift on this, because I suspect Swift is doing the same kind of work tracking down IRA funds for Britain and ETA funds for Spain, and perhaps Ivorian funds for the French and mafia money for the Italians and so on. European governments are not going to leap to help Al Qaeda. London subway? Madrid’s Atocha station? Europeans may dislike us, that doesn’t make them Qaeda supporters.
Screaming “treason” is just a sad political tactic, the point of which is to distract from the war. Republicans want to talk about gay marriage, flag burning, NYT treason — anything to avoid talking about the mess they’ve made.
The notion advanced by Bernie that it is somehow up to the NYT to win this war because the military can’t is absurd. Osama and his pals did not draw inspiration from the NYT, they drew inspiration from the Koran, from various religious nuts, from their own crazy imaginations, and from the opportunities provided by the resolution of Russia’s involvement in Afghanistan and the American involvement in Saudi Arabia. If it isn’t possible for this war to be won militarily, may I ask precisely why we are attempting to do just that?
The war is going poorly, so the NYT is to blame. Right.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:51 am
Are they beyond the arm of the law? No, absolutely not. That wasn’t my point and I think that’s obvious from my writing.
However, I think everybody should go back and read the Bill of Rights. For sake of brevity, here’s Amendment One:
So yes, the founders felt that the freedom of the press was as important as free expression of religion and freedom of speech. They knew what “the press” was back then.
Daniel…you go onto say this and I’m having a hard time making sense of it…
Ummm, no. Seriously, I should be more concerned when somebody from Daily Kos is talking about Bush instead of worrying what the right wing noise machine is shouting? I’ve called out Daily Kos before, and I’m sure I’ll do it again, but this is a different topic and your comment suggests I should instead focus on them while these hacks go off on the press and call for an office of censorship? Give me a break. I often respect your opinions Daniel, but this one is not going to be one of those times.
Switching gears, Bernie said this:
Then by that definition, the press can’t report on nearly anything in the WOT. Seriously. Any setback that the press reports is aiding the enemy. When they focus on the tens of thousands who’ve died in Iraq, they’re helping the enemy. I don’t think many conservatives appreciate exactly what they’re saying when they talk about the press reporting “the good news.” It has never been the press’ job, nor will it ever by their job, to report “the good news.” It is their job to shine light, that’s it.
And let’s be perfectly frank here, the Bush administration has done themselves NO favors in this WOT. I agree this is a media war, but the government has been doing things that normal Americans can’t make much sense of. The interpretation of the Constitution that during wartime the President can break any law for as long as he wants? Are you kidding me? But this is the argument, and we’re in a war on a tactic…a war without end. Add two and two together and you’re looking at a policy that imparts the President the power of a Emperor. No checks and balances at that point, just might makes right. That’s not America, and I’m going to keep pointing that out until this policy is changed.
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
There are two separate issues here that are being inappropriately conflated. Of course one issue is whether the papers should have printed the story (and like stories) but a bigger issue is the discourse surrounding the “debate.” I keep reading defenses of “how can you suppress his free speech while championing what you agree with” or the milder “he was just expressing his anger.” The problem is that such vitrol has nothing to do with analyzing what is going on and trying to convince everyone, it is about whipping up a mob mentality to use power and force to get what you want. “Good” debate is one that creates back and forth and causes more questions to be asked so all sides can analyze every angle.
Seb and Bernie have two posts that clearly express their opinion and have facts and logic to support it. While I support the decision to publish it, reading stuff like their posts makes me a little bit more neutral and respectful of arguments against it. I’m curious to see how they respond to this and several stories I’ve read about how the bulk of low level funding comes not from international wire transfers, but literally from people driving around collecting it from wealthy jihadists (especially from saudi arabia) and even ordinary people literally giving away nearly all they have for the “cause.” i.e. what are the tangible effects on the ground and in what cases is tracking the central wire transfers most effective/yield the most information? Did the terrorists already know about this — maybe they always did and statistically they took their chances?
The most important effect of civil discourse is using collective intelligence to analyze what exactly is going on. There is a propensity to view all the government programs (or overarching theories) as “magic” that always work for both good and ill. If you are against them suddenly it’s “oh Big Brother can tell everything I’m doing and could come down at any second” or the opposite “now that you’ve exposed it, you’ve made the terrorists aware that they were being perfectly tracked and now they will stop doing those things.” In reality, this is normally absurd. For example, the phone record database was shown to be entirely mathematically useless. I really wish I could find it again, (it was on some military/intelligence blog) but I read about how even if you knew some starting terrorists, the complexity of daily interactions is so large that quickly tens of thousands of people are “connected” and any minimal attempt to hide the relationship will completely destroy any inference ability. Especially when it comes to a program like this (where it is impossible for the terrorists to completely stop everything they are doing) I think it is very important to release some details. At worst, it will show that the government is wasting time, money and effort on something that won’t work, and perhaps it’ll even allow the common citizenry to help improve the program.
I haven’t been able to read how the SWIFT stuff works, but my guess is that it is mostly likely uses very mundane anti-money laundering methods developed to help take down the mob and drug cartels. I have heard not one iota of evidence this is not the case — and if it isn’t, then literally the only thing that the article revealed was that for some reason this was being done without subpoenas. If it was some new fangled thing then I might be able to be convinced it should be kept secret, but if the only reason why it was secret was because the President didn’t want oversight, then that’s a completely different story.
Any discussion is cut off when calling for people’s deaths and saying they are a traitor without proving that they are beyond a doubt actively trying to get the United States destroyed. I personally am getting worried. For the last couple of years, the ted rall/coulter rhetoric was just amusing, but it’s starting to leech out into the general populace. Groups whipping up their supporters into frenzies and longing for direct physical attacks against those that disagree. Equating anyone that doesn’t agree as morally equivalent to terrorists. Discounting any attempt to present an alternative viewpoint as being part of some vast conspiracy. These are the forefathers of totalitarian uprisings and civil war. That’s not even taking into account the fact that it shields the policy makers from actually seeing what is working and what isn’t. When you have the viewpoint that your plan was perfect and you’re only failing because of someone else pointing out faults in it, then things will never be righted.
As it stands, rational discourse (about anything) seems to be confined to a few small places and is very passive. If things continue to get much worse, I think the “middle” (or at least rational) will need to band together and go on the offensive, condemning anyone that stokes anger and fear (even if they agree with the reasons why) and standing shoulder to shoulder with those that try to persuade and be honest even if they disagree.
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Justin, I couldnt agree with you more. And this is why people need to elevate Supreme Court nominations to the top of their list when choosing a president. This president’s nominations agree he has unfettered, almost dictatorial powers to fight an undeclared “war” against a tactic: “terrorism.” Yes…war against a tactic. We might as well declare war against massed infantry assaults, the war to last as long as there are massed infantry assaults or the capacity to engage in them…i.e….forever. You dont war against a tactic. How can you? When does it ever end? Do we war against Irish terrorism? Right Wing domestic terrorism (Oklahoma, City)? Basque terrorism? Palestinian terrorism? All of them? Forever? Once you use the “w” word to describe what you are doing, people get scared and want to elevate their Prez to Kingly status. Its so cowardly. Now it is certaily understandable when you are in a civil war with hundreds of thousands of caualties. Its also understandable when a nation attacks you and seeks to destroy you. The only legimate war we could have had post 9-11 was against Afghanistan. The laws of nations permitted it and we were justified. Everything elese is a job for the CIA, Special Ops, surgical air power, and elite police units. After all, flooding Iraq with soldiers has not eliminanted terrorism there has it? You cant fight the tactic of terrorism with conventional forces. The Brits learned this when it was the pre-Israelis engaging in terrorim against the Brits to get Israel created. Those pre-Isaelis believed that the tactic of terror was legitmately employed, while to the Brits it was terror to be fought. All unsuccessfully, in the final analysis. Once we tried to elevate this “war” to being against a tactic anywhere deployed by an amorphous and stateless foe, we trapped ouorselves in a situation where one who desires unfettered power can make a play for it-forever. If we dont wake up soon we will find that we no longer recognize what we are fighting for. Oh thats right, we only fight for the flag. Look, half the people were Tories during the American Revolution. After 225 years or so we are still so divided.
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Yes there is a reason why in 1984 the government controlled the people by running an endless “war.” Nazi Germany, Egypt and Syria, just to name a few, went from relative democracies to totalitarian states all in the name of fighting terrorism. But Justin, I think that’s why it’s so important to expend a lot of effort keeping your side from ratcheting up the rhetoric. We ARE in some sort of conflict with Islamic terrorists that will last years or decades. If you think the situation is bad now, just imagine if we have another terrorist attack — one that creates a recession and puts a lot of people out of work. Or Iran gets the bomb. Or an Iraq collapse starts a regional war. If we are getting this cemented while in a relative period of [homeland] peace and prosperity, then any of those cataylsts could cause the situation to explode. The more we blame each other, the less the government has to explain and the easier it is for them to keep an endless amorphous war. It’s obviously good to fight the good fight, but might it not be more effective to seek out your mirror opposite and try to convince them to speak out against their extremist brethren/persuade the fence sitters while you do the same?
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Justin,
My point is that press mavens often claim special status, and that you seem to agree with that claim (even as you display every day that press freedom is the right of the populace in general). That may be a misinterpretation on my part. But this:
lead me to disagree. The Founders most certainly did not single out “the press;” they singled out the exercise of the press. This is fundamentally different, as the press is a tool of the populace to check their government.
On your second point: I did not mean to imply that you were taking sides, and I apologize for the inference. I was trying to make the point that we all tend to soft pedal outrageous actions when undertaken by those with whom we have sympathies. This is in correlation with my growing disgust for both the right and left wings. Today, I am mostly disgusted with those rightists who claim that a NYT travel piece is an attempt by the paper to assist al Qaeda in targeting Bush officials. Tomorrow, it will be another stupid statement from the left. I am in no way suggesting that you should do anything other than what you are doing and I am not disagreeing that this is can become a dangerous precedent. The talk of treason whips up the more easily influenced constituencies. Crying “treason” several times will lower our collective resistance to such talk. I don’t see you and me as disagreeing on that.
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Wake up, sheeple! All of these programs initiated by Buch and Co. have absolutely no eefect on the war against terrorists. Nor are they intended to. When all is said and done we will all see that the majority of this illegal spying was actually being done on Americans for the purpose of quashing political opposition at home. You right wingers, having become absolute cowards after 9-11, despite all your tough talk (YES, I”M TALKING TO YOU DALLAS), are more than willing to piss away all our great freedoms and rights to a fascist, monarchist party and one led by a nitwit at that.
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
I didn’t read all the posts, so I apologize if someone else has already addressed the most obvious point: Where is the “leaker” in all this? I don’t see the White House, Congress or the screeching public going after him or her. I’m tired of this constant assault on the messenger while ignoring the sender (and sometime the message itself!). I wonder, too, what all these pundits will do when it’s revealed that hte leaker was someone highly placed in the Administration and the leak was intentional.
(How can I make that claim, you ask? I worked in the Intel field for a long, long time and I’m very familiar with the compartmentalization of classified information and the way it’s tracked. So when I see “secrets” being revealed and no one being placed in cuffs shortly thereafter, it tells me that no one is chasing the leaker. Ask yourself, How can so many secret projects be revealed with absolutely no one being put in jail? Yes, they did accuse one CIA worker, Mary McCarthy, but only fired her, so how serious was the information she supposedly leaked to the press? Bottom line, the lack of perp walks indicates either that either some highly placed Bush Administration officials are complicit in these acts or the Bush Administration is inept beyond comprehension.)
Let’s face it: none of the so-called secret programs that the press has exposed over the last 18 months are that secretive nor were anything beyond what the typical bad guy assumes is going on. Please! Tracking phone calls? Tracing money transactions? Sending bad guys to less restrictive prison environments for interrogation?
As I mentioned earlier, I spent the bulk of my working life involved with Intel agencies and one of the lessons we learned in that world is that information is primarily classified to keep it from the public rather than protect information that the bad guys don’t know we have.
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:34 pm
MediaMatters have two excellent articles on the “treason” accusations.
I have them summarised here
There are three fundamental falsehoods involved.
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Who coined the phrased, “The Bill of Rights is not a Suicide Pact”, was it:
a) Justice Goldberg
b) Justice Jackson
c) Justice Gardner
d) Justice Marshall
The winner will get a free Julius & Ethel Rosenberg Bug Zapper from Walmart!
July 2nd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Luis just hit on the point I have been wating to ask. Where’s the leaker in all of this? If anyone has committed treason (I don’t think this goes that far at all) it’s the leaker, not the NYT. If you’re given a story as a member of the media, you have some responsibility to determine whether it should be printed or not. However, if you are the one leaking classified information, you’re clearly breaking the law simply by sharing it.
For what it’s worth, I simply assumed that programs like this existed. Is it that impossible to believe that terrorists and terrorist supporters also assumed it existed? I highly doubt that the NYT story will change how terrorsts and their supporters act and, given the fact that the other, more questionable “terrorist surveillance” programs have continued after being reported on, I highly doubt this one will not continue.
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:13 pm
It bothers me that people will refuse to discuss an issue until it is too late. The 9-11 commission recommendations were nearly universally supported. Kerry made them an election issue when the President did not universally implement them. Now the results of those recommendations, specifically “the wall� between intelligence and law enforcement are causing a lot of people to attack the president. The “wall� got a lot of the blame for not preventing the attacks. The NSA issues, and the Swift monitoring were the integration of intelligence agencies and law enforcement. These are what life without the “wall� look like.
The president should have forced congress to re-write the laws to specifically allow these types of intelligence gathering. Advancements in technology have made some old laws like FISA difficult to reconcile. That does not in my opinion excuse those people who made it clear that the “wall� must be taken down and who are now attacking the president for doing just that. The President approved these programs, but they were designed by non-partisan career professionals in the NSA and other agencies and given to him for approval.
The Founders did have a desire to limit the power of the President, however they also recognized that a weak executive figurehead was paralyzing. The balancing of the branches of government was an amazing achievement that has worked well. The executive branch is a co-equal branch of government. Congress has no authority to enforce the laws they pass, without an effective executive branch Congress is useless.
Justin, “the press� in the founders’ time was the printing press, a machine. The Freedom of the press was established to protect every citizen. Think Thomas Paine publishing “Common Sense�, not NYT. “The Press� the founders knew were very similar to blogs today, there was nothing that resembled the NYT.
Mikkel, the Froomkin article is funny, unfortunately some people actually think that way. The Swift program was not a well-kept secret, it had been discussed other places, but it was not widely known and this made it effective. By putting it on the front page the NYT changed that. We have many ways to hunt the terrorists, but we are limited in the tools available to investigate who is funding them. Dennis Lormel on the http://counterterrorismblog.org/ has been discussing terror financing for years and his writing is politics free and very informative. I don’t know how to add links. Most
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Bernie, the president wouldn’t have had to “force” Congress to rewrite the laws, he had only to ask. Had he asked for the laws to be changed they would have been and much of this controversy would go away.
But he didn’t just forget to ask for legal support, he rejected it. He promoted a grandiose and un-American vision of unlimited executive power during the duration of an endless war. I am 100% in favor of the SWIFT program, and mostly in favor of the NSA bugging, but ONLY if the president is acting within the law, and under the review of the other two branches of government.
This isn’t enough for Mr. Bush, he must swagger and posture and demand total, unsupervised power. As usual with Mr. Bush, he puts his own arrogance ahead of the interests of this country. His delusional behavior is one of the chief causes of the underlying controversy.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Bernie et al…
Who leaked? According to MediaMatters -
Bush
FATF
and of course SWIFT themselves
Most pertinent of the lot is the assumption - WFTW - that the terrorist networks could never work out for themselves that the international financing systems involved risk. That is just intellectual arrogance.
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Micheal, I think we are in agreement. I don’t see the President as evil though. I don’t believe this is an issue of “a grandiose and un-American vision of unlimited executive power during the duration of an endless war”. The reality is that there are old laws that have been partially superceded by recent laws like the patriot act and the AUMF. The battle of how to limit executive power without making it impotent has been an issue ever since the founding fathers tried to write the constitution. These are complicated issues. The Supreme Court does not get involved if the issues are simple or straight forward. The 5/3 (5/4) decision on Hamden is an example. The last paragraph of your comment does not show your reasoning ability in a favorable light.
Probligo, the program was not quite a secret, but it was not well known. They knew we invested a lot of resources to track terror financing but no much in specifically how we were doing it. If the terror financers had the information the program would not have been effective. It has directly led to significant arrests. I am not arguing that what the NYT did was illegal; I am saying that it was wrong. They are not the same thing.
The traditional media likes to claim it is defending our freedom. I believe they should take a look at the military for inspiration. They should desire to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If UBL succeeds in establishing his Caliphate civil rights wouldn’t even appear in history books. The traditional media could do some cheerleading for America without compromising its ability to report real abuses. They could direct some of the articles to Muslim audiences illustrating the contradiction of Islamic values and the way UBL operates. This is not asking the press to give the executive a free pass. If the press believes it is a part of “checks and balances� then they can own some of the responsibility to ensure our way of life is protected.
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Bernie:
It wasn’t intended as a demonstration of reasoning power, it was intended as a comment on a president who makes his own problems worse by virtue of his own arrogance.
As for these being complex issues, they would be a great deal simpler if Mr. Bush would do the sensible thing and ask for such changes as are needed in the law. It is well established that Mr. Bush intends to increase the power of the executive. If we wishes to simplify the issues he might choose to focus on the matter at hand — defeating Al Qaeda — and less on his and Mr. Cheney’s desire to expand executive powers. The simple fact is that this inter-branch battle is unecessary as a supine GOP Congress has demonstrated its willingness to give Mr. Bush whatever authority he requests.
In other words, Bernie, he had only to ask. He deliberately refused to ask, and thus we have the ensuing controversies — controversies which have damaged Mr. Bush’s ability to get done the very things he claims he needs to do — and the logical conclusion is that Mr. Bush has become a victim of his own arrogance.
Hey, what do you know: turns out my final paragraph was reasonable after all.
And really, Bernie, a man who suggests that the press should model itself on the military and seems to suggest that an Osama Caliphate is a serious threat to the continuation of civil liberties in the United States is in no position to comment on anyone’s reasoning ability.
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Bernie, think of it this way…
The same techniques probably have been used for some years (without checking I would guess at least ten) for tracking the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Now, that also may not be widely published.
The point is this. AlQaeda and Taleban are both (have been both) deeply involved in drug trafficking.
Can you possibly imagine that they had not learned, even BEFORE 2001, that others were looking over their shoulders? Is it inconceivable that elements of their finance distribution systems have not gone “missing” in the past? More to the point can you not imagine they might learn from those experiences?
Another instance.
Every time I fly in or out of NZ, one of the questions on the Customs form is “Are you carrying currency in excess of NZD1,000?” This is not asked for my own safety, so that they can allocate me an armed guard or anything. If an AlQaeda agent were to arrive at Auckland, is he so stupid that he would not pass the word back to his bosses at the earliest opportunity? “Hey boss, be careful who you send with cash into NZ, and how much they carry”.
Second, Customs make no secret of the fact they catch people not declaring cash, and what happens as a result. Take it from me, if you don’t declare and get pulled then you can expect a long stay at the airport.
Oh, and is Customs guilty of treason because they participate in “real life” tv programmes showing people getting caught? They don’t say “how”, other than “them’s the rules, this is what we do…”
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:29 pm
The problem here as I see it is that we (left, right, center, whatever) are drawing battle lines instead of addressing the issues.
One side screams “traitor” the other shouts “freedom of the press” but few stop and ask “was the Times right even though they had the right?”
A lot of perceptive writer and pundits have now spent a lot of time either vigorously defending the press’ freedoms or vigorously making a case for treason–but few are willing to dicsuss the issue on more practical and realistic terms.
The New York Times did not commit treason. But neither was their decision to publush the story some grand act of press freedom. The truth, I think, is somewhere in between. The way I see it, the Times was wrong but not treasoness. Unfortunately, few people want to discuss it in those terms.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
With all due respect to the cordial civility of your position ASC, I don’t know how, with these facts, the NYT could be wrong, but not treasoness. I’m will to be convinced, though. (Although I’m not willing to be convinced that the NYT’s was right in publishing the story. Sorry.)
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 am
Was the NYT et. al. right to publish the story? Depends on their reasoning, doesn’t it?
Is it harmful to the efforts to combat ‘terrorism’? Any one committing an illegal act (as terrorism and its financing are) and isn’t conscious of efforts to detect it (efforts Bush himself has been more than willing to trumpet since 9/11) isn’t anywhere near the threat they’re being portrayed as.
SWIFT itself is no secret, and far less likely to be for any international financier of terrorism.
Is publicly shouting its existence a risk? No, because anyone smart enough to send money in such a way should know the risk it’ll be monitored and tracked somehow. Who said SWIFT is the only tool used? How do you know the banks haven’t caved like most of the TelCo’s did? You don’t.
Is the USG’s use of SWIFT illegal? It (probably) isn’t in the US, but may be in Europe. Ah, so now it’s OK to disregard other countries’ laws, too?
The NYT SWIFT story is another report of the Administration conducting surveillance without legal oversight of any kind, and once again an embarassment to a WH who’d much rather keep everything they do under wraps.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we’re living in a post-9/11 world. Just don’t be surprised if it turns into pre-1776 nation.
July 3rd, 2006 at 7:45 am
So does everyone now agree that SWIFT was not a secret before the NYT story went out? It was not widely known but it was not a secret. OK, we have a starting point.
Now, let’s consider the fact that it was not widely known. How widely known was it that people could carry box cutters or knives with blades shorter than, if I recall, 3 inches onto airplanes before 9/11? I sure didn’t know you could do that. I thought any knife or potential weapon was not allowed on board. I always packed my pocketknife with a 2-3 inch blade in my checked luggage because I didn’t want it taken at a checkpoint. From my understanding, the information that these potential weapons could be carried on was not secret but was not widely known. Yet Al Qaeda knew.
My point is that Al Qaeda is in the business of knowing not generally known rules, enforcement techniques, and loopholes. If the SWIFT operation was public knowledge, which it seems there is no argument it is not, it’s very safe to assume that Al Qaeda knew about it and most likely knew more details about it than we want to admit. Chances are very good that the NYT breaking this story did not give Al Qaeda any information they did not already know. It just gave the general American public information that Al Qaeda knew but the average Joe on the street never took the time to consider.
Should the NYT have reported this story? Maybe, maybe not. Anyone who thinks they know all they need to know about this story to make such a judgement is either naive or doing a good job of kidding themselves. However, likewise, anyone who thinks there’s no way Al Qaeda could have already known what the NYT printed is also either naive or kidding themselves.
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:52 am
The reason I say that this program was no completely secret was that it was disclosed in a UN report (http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/reports_of_us_monitoring_of_sw.php)
This may prevent any prosecution of someone for revealing classified information. I am not a lawyer so that’s just a guess.
If the enemy knew about this program from disclosures like these, and then why did they continued to get caught? My guess is that some did know and have avoided getting caught; others did not know and have paid the price. The same could be said for the people who support the financially. The difference is that now everyone knows. Read the rest of the http://counterterrorismblog.org/ from June 22 till now, these are the people involved with the program.
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
“If the enemy knew about this program from disclosures like these, and then why did they continued to get caught?”
Because there are always people who think they can slip between the cracks. To compare them to a much more commonplace happening, these are the people who see the speed trap but cruise through 25 mph over the speed limit anyway. Even though they know the speed trap is there, they take their chances, hoping the police officer will either somehow not notice them or not care enough to stop them.
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Should NYT have published?
Yes, because the electorate has the right to know what their government is doing.
After all, just who is supposed to be in charge? The electorate or the government?
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Hello all. I’m the new guy… cheers.
The first thing I would like to complain about is something you are all missing. I would like to complain about calling this thing that our country is doing against the vague notion of “terrorism”… a “war”.
It is not a war. Any more than the “war on drugs” is a war. You cannot war against an idea, or an object. It won’t work. How many times in the history of humanity has some leader or group of people tried to stomp out an idea completely? Ideas don’t go away, and ideas create objects, which won’t go away either.
Yet, the American people refuse to learn. More than 20 years after the advent of the “war on drugs”, it continues in its fullest fury. Drug lords and politicians in South and Central America continue to kill each other unabated, the US continues to try and flood the problem with money and helicopters, average American men and women languish in prison while our tax dollars feed and clothe them… ALL BECAUSE RICHARD NIXON DECIDED HE NEEDED A BETTER CAMPAIGN PLATFORM.
People shout back and forth about why it’s not working… there’s not enough money spent… there’s mean people working against it… God hates us and won’t let us succeed because we are no longer His chosen nation… whatever. One common string unites all of the arguements, and yet people refuse to see it in above their petty ranting. WHAT WE’RE DOING IN THE WAR ON DRUGS IS NOT WORKING.
This brings me to my point. What makes us think that a “war on terrorism” will work? Is our country truly any safer than it was ten years ago? OF COURSE NOT.
Today, a terrorist could drive a tanker truck full of kaboom onto the Golden Gate Bridge, and not a soul would see it coming. This is just one of a million ways to wreak terror, and we’ve closed off about… two of them. No more crazy Saudis will sneak onto an American airplane with a knife and run it into a sky-scraper, and probably no randomly-pissed off bubba will mail anybody any anthrax. How likely is a terrorist attack to happen again soon on American soil? If you ask me, the chances are somewhat iffish, maybe, could happen, but then again, maybe not, maybe… who knows? The world has changed.
In some ways…
Yet in some ways, it is the same. And Americans, like the mass-media-lead sheep herd that we seem to be, completely miss the point. The point is not security. The point is not drugs.
The point is that the world is changing around us, and we must change with it. When politics moves too much to the right, that is a scary thing. Silly wars happen, people die, and we go in debt. We must fight to get things back on an even keel. Incidentally, I think that’s what the editor of NYT had in mind… an even keel. Regardless of the legality, regardless of the mindless set of side-details that everyone wants to concentrate on so much… “He’s a traitor!”… “No, he’s a true American… go Free Speech!”… these things are all beside the point. An even keel is truly what matters.
Sincerely:
John B. Shelton
PS: For those of who you raised your fists in victory because I said mean things about those of the political right just now, don’t get too excited. I’m not one of you either. When politics moves too far to the left, trees get hugged, there’s free love, everybody gets AIDS, and we all go into debt all over again.
Go Even Keel!
July 4th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Dear Mr. Shelton:
In my opinion, the US government only call the war the “War on Terror” because the “War on Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists” sounds too much like “War on Islam”. They (al Qaeda et al.) are still going to be trying to kill us even if we become more “balanced” politically (however you would specifically define that). To some extent, this isn’t really about us.
Anyway, it seems most people here think treason is the wrong (wrong, wrong, wrong, etc. etc. ad nauseum) word to use. Fine, we’re all on the same page there. Luckily, it doesn’t seem as though the Europeans will stop cooperating on monitoring banking transactions, at least according to counterterrorismblog.org . That means all the calls of treason were the usual cynical overreaction. I still think the Keller et al. are a bunch of dipshits for publishing it in the first place, but reasonable people can disagree. Without calling anyone a traitor, even.
Happy Fourth of July, everyone!
July 4th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Too many of the commenters here are trying to either give the loud paranoia critics the benefit of the doubt or are listening to too much right wing media.
There are questions about the programs legality. Cheney and Bush have repeatedly bragged about the program. There were no secrets revealed that harm anyone.
July 4th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
The point of that long post of mine was to bring forth the idea of balance, and rightness, and to stop worrying about the fine print of legality, or what the governent says, or what the media says.
Was it right to publish? Who could know, at this point? I think it was, but that’s just the lowly opinion of a uneducated white guy. Truly, only history will determine the ultimate rightness of the thing, and for that we just have to wait.
Arguing about legality, though, seems to me to completely miss the point. Both sides have legality on their side. The treason people have legality. The constitution people have legality. Whose legality is greater? I refuse to partake in that argument. It’ll degenerate into the same sort of endless go-around that abortion people engage in.
July 4th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Extremist right-wing Republican politicians and press? This REALLY worries you? Oh c’mon, give me a break. The possibility of some fruitcake religious extremist setting off a WMD in the US is what REALLY worries me.
The NYT published classified information. The way I understand it, that’s not legal. I learned this fact from all the loud breast-beating that went on over Ms. Plame, our super-secret 007 CIA special-agent getting outed. Funny how things have changed since then. It appears to me there is a BIG double standard here.
I’ve read Mr. Keller’s pontifications about how noble he is and all the agony he went through prior to publication. I’ve never read such total pandering horse-pooey. I certainly don’t want an “I am so holy” idiot like him making command decisions about what the lowly American public needs to know. What makes him so qualified to make those decisions anyway? A journalism degree? A job title? Has he been elected to represent the American public?
People say we need a leash on government. I’m not so certain we don’t need one on the press too. I think they have way more power to sway public opinion than the government. Think about it - a handful of people, not elected to their office, not responsible to anyone, have had almost total control over the message to the public. That REALLY worries me too. Thank God for alternative media. A lot more of the truth gets out now, plus much greater diversity of opinion..
I say we need to hold the press to the same high standards of ethics and responsibility that we expect from Bush.
July 4th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Lewis:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
What are you, a communist? Put a leash on the press? You’re worried because they have more power than the president to affect public opinion? And this worries you because tyrannies are forever being imposed by reporters?
Please tell me you’re a kid. Please tell me no adult American is this ignorant of history.
July 5th, 2006 at 12:37 am
No Michael, I’m 52. By being around that long, I’ve seen way too much half-truths, convenient omission of facts and opinions of individuals passed on as “truth” by the press (MSM) for me to worship their irresponsible behavior. It seems to me that some place the press on an untouchable pedestal, that they are holy and righteous beyond all question. I sure don’t. I always use a healthy dose of skepticism.
This is why I don’t read mainstream magazines or newspapers or watch network news anymore. I did that most all my life because that’s all there was. Then I discovered blogging. Wow, real experts, not some journalism major who didn’t have much of a clue what they were reporting on. And a diversity of opinion AND facts never found in any of the old media. Plus I find blogging to be much more enlightening and educational (and fun too).
You avoided discussing my main point. Who controls the power of the MSM press? You can’t get rid of these guys in an election every 4 years. And please tell me you’re not so naive to think they can’t get caught up in the lust for power and their own personal agenda just like politicians do.
I think we let the press off way to easy. What’s wrong with the idea to keep these guys to the highest possible standards of ethics and responsibility? Look at the crap Dan Rather tried to pull. And the blogs are just packed full of examples of how the press misleads Americans on very important issues. Their job is way too important not to expect, no, to demand they act according to the level of responsibility they hold in our nation. You know, the same thing we demand out of our politicians, the military and our government in general.
No, I’m not giving the press a free pass - they don’t deserve one.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:51 am
The press gets a free pass? In what universe? Every politician who has a bad day attacks the press. They are the most attacked insititution in this country. Bush attacks them, Hillary attacks them, Cheney attacks them, every politician alive has attacked them. Academics attack them. Think tanks attack them. Bloggers attack them. Foreign governments attack them. They attack each other. Free pass? Say what?
The media are a business. So in addition to being attacked by absolutely every self-serving pol and every smart-ass with a computer, the media has to try and turn a profit. If they don’t they go under. That is the ‘leash’ we hold.
As for preferring bloggers, good grief, you’d rather put your trust in people about whom you know nothing, who in any event simply comment upon or re-interpret what they read in the MSM? I say this as a blogger: 95% of what political bloggers write about is info coming from the MSM. A minuscule proportion is independent reporting. Bloggers can be a very useful tool for understanding and critiquing the MSM, but the idea that we have somehow replaced the MSM, or that you should avoid the source and trust the interpretations is foolish.
Americans love to attack the media because it is easy, it’s a fun gang activity, it requires very little thought, it allows people to sound wise and independent, and it costs nothing. And some of that criticism is deserved. But this piling on, me-too, aren’t-I-terribly-clever-for-trashing-a-newspaper-I-don’t-read thing is tired, worn out and brain dead.
July 5th, 2006 at 9:17 am
“The NYT published classified information. The way I understand it, that’s not legal. I learned this fact from all the loud breast-beating that went on over Ms. Plame, our super-secret 007 CIA special-agent getting outed. Funny how things have changed since then. It appears to me there is a BIG double standard here.”
You might want to check on the lessons from the Plame controversy. Did anyone in the media get in legal hot water for publishing classified information? If what was illegal was the publishing of classified information, we wouldn’t have needed such a lengthy investigation, we knew who published it. Where the issue came into play was that it was illegal to leak the classified information to the media in the first place.
Once again, all the focus is on the NYT but, if their publishing this information was such a big deal, why is nobody concerned about the individual(s) who leaked this information? You’re right. It is funny how things have changed since then. The media was given a free pass when her name was printed but investigations into who leaked her name went on for years. This time around, the media is taking all the heat and nobody seems to be concerned with who leaked the information in the first place.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
I spent about 35 years watching network news and reading Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, and several other news mags and the local paper. Not to mention USA Today on occasion. And it’s obvious to me, if you really want to learn more in depth and from all sides, then blogging is the place to be. There’s no contest really although blogging takes more time and effort.
The elite news media has consolidated a lot, which has reduced diversity and consolidated power in fewer hands. I don’t see any difference in the trust thing. I don’t know anything about the media elite either so why should I trust them more than bloggers. And it’s quite obvious that they apply liberal doses of their own interpretation to news-worthy events.
The best thing about blogs is that there are so many of them. Elite media is so incredibly narrow in comparison that the bias of a few individuals can color all the news in the “preferred” direction. Unfortunately, this very narrow viewpoint is what’s passed on as the official version of events and is exposed to the largest percentage of the populace. That’s incredible power in the hands of a small, select and elite group of people. And we complain about power held by big and bad business corporations? I can’t believe you don’t see that, being a blogger and all.
As an example, consider the Katrina coverage by the elite media. They got just about all the most important facts wrong, and plastered them on the front page. It’s Bush’s fault - it’s global warming - it’s white racism against blacks and on and on. What happened after the real truth started getting out? Did they do the same front page splash? I think it was Popular Science that eventually came out with the most in-depth expose of all the mis-reporting and urban legends. Of couse, bloggers were there way first exposing much of the media stupidity. How totally cool.
So what’s a body to do? Read the MSM stuff and get part of the facts some of the time and then make a fool of yourself spouting MSM learned stuff only to find out much later that most of what you said was not exactly true? Or turn to blogs and take personal responsibility for finding the real truth. I guarantee you far more facts and truth are out there in that big pile of bits than you’ll ever find in the elite media.
And another thing. There are many truly great opinion bloggers out there. As good if not much better than much of the elite media syndicated op-eds. Not to say there aren’t good ones in the MSM, but the percentage of goof-balls is way high for such a tiny group.
So excuse me for being “not an adult” and “brain dead”. I simply don’t agree with you. And so far all your arguments have no persuasive power whatsoever, at least in my brain-dead opinion.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:34 am
A little off topic, but I just wanted to make the point that back in Spring of 2003, the MSM was war-mongering like crazy. I remember turning on the news to cries about mushroom clouds and all other types of doomsday scenarios - WMD’s, mustard gas, BLT’s (a little Ali G humor), whatever. War in Iraq was being promoted like shopping on the day after x-mas. I thought that was pretty biased media reporting.
The point is, the MSM sucks most of the time because you can’t really trust them to report facts anymore. It’s all sensationalized, overblown ratings-wars. There are certain media outlets that are better than others. My rule of thumb - if the news program isn’t dull as hell, then you shouldn’t be watching it.
I know it’s not good marketing unless you “entertain” people, but just like being in a classroom, at a certain point (at least once you reach college), you should be adult enough to pay attention to serious issues without having a three-ring circus going on in the background. My favorite news sources are all the programs on PBS and listening to NPR. The reason I like them is that I normally learn something, which I consider to be a good thing.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
The history channel is my favorite. It may be “old news” but most of the facts and falsehoods have been identified by then and you can see the important lessons that history will teach you if you pay attention. And as a bonus, I almost always learn something. Many times I learn what I thought happened really wasn’t what happened or many times the most important thing that did happen I didn’t even know about.