Any doubts about whether the Bush administration intends to imprison unfriendly journalists (defined as "journalists who fail to obey the Bush administration's orders about what to publish") were completely dispelled this weekend. As I have noted many times before, one of the most significant dangers our country faces is the all-out war now being waged on our nation's media -- and thereby on the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press -- by the Bush administration and its supporters, who are furious that the media continues to expose controversial government policies and thereby subject them to democratic debate. After the unlimited outpouring of venomous attacks on the Times this weekend, I believe these attacks on our free press have become the country's most pressing political issue.
Documenting the violent rhetoric and truly extremist calls for imprisonment against the Times is unnecessary for anyone paying even minimal attention the last few days. On every cable news show, pundits and even journalists talked openly about whether the editors and reporters of the Times were traitors deserving criminal punishment. The Weekly Standard, always a bellwether of Bush administration thinking, is now actively crusading for criminal prosecution against the Times. And dark insinuations that the Times ought to be physically attacked are no longer the exclusive province of best-selling right-wing author Ann Coulter, but -- as Hume's Ghost recently documented -- are now commonly expressed sentiments among all sorts of "mainstream" Bush supporters. Bush supporters are now engaged in all-out, unlimited warfare against journalists who are hostile to the administration and who fail to adhere to the orders of the Commander-in-Chief about what to print.
The clear rationale underlying the arguments of Bush supporters needs to be highlighted. They believe that the Bush administration ought to be allowed to act in complete secrecy, with no oversight of any kind. George Bush is Good and the administration wants nothing other than to stop The Terrorists from killing us. There is no need for oversight over what they are doing because we can trust our political officials to do good on their own. We don't need any courts or any Congress or any media serving as a "watchdog" over the Bush administration. There is no reason to distrust what they do. We should -- and must -- let them act in total secrecy for our own good, for our protection. And anyone who prevents them from acting in total secrecy is not merely an enemy of the Bush administration, but of the United States, i.e., is a traitor.
A book could and ought to be written about the corrupt reasoning and truly unparalleled dangers characterizing this anti-media lynch mob. But for now, following are what I believe are the most noteworthy points:
(1) There is not a single sentence in the Times banking report that could even arguably "help the terrorists."
George Bush and his allies in the right-wing media (such as at National Review) have been running around for the last several years boasting about the administration's programs for tracking terrorists and innovating our surveillance methods. In doing so, they have repeatedly -- and in detail -- told the public, and therefore The Terrorists, all sorts of details about the counter-terrorism programs we have implemented, including -- from the President's mouth himself -- programs we have for monitoring international banking transactions.
Here is President Bush, campaigning for re-election in Hershey, Pennsylvania on April 19, 2004, boasting about our vigilant efforts to monitor the terrorists' banking transactions:
Before September the 11th, law enforcement could more easily obtain business and financial records of white-collar criminals than of suspected terrorists. See, part of the way to make sure that we catch terrorists is we chase money trails. And yet it was easier to chase a money trail with a white-collar criminal than it was a terrorist. The Patriot Act ended this double standard and it made it easier for investigators to catch suspected terrorists by following paper trails here in America.
And as former State Department official Victor Comraes detailed (and documented) on the Counterterrorism blog, it has long been pubic knowledge that the U.S. Government specifically monitors terrorists' banking transactions through SWIFT:
Yesterday’s New York Times Story on US monitoring of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transactions certainly hit the street with a splash. It awoke the general public to the practice. In that sense, it was truly new news.
But reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group , on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries.
The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website. Paragraph 31 of the report states:
"The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."
Suggestions that SWIFT and other similar transactions should be monitored by investigative agencies dealing with terrorism, money laundering and other criminal activity have been out there for some time. An MIT paper discussed the pros and cons of such practices back in 1995. Canada’s Financial Intelligence Unit, FINTRAC,, for one, has acknowledged receiving information on Canadian origin SWIFT transactions since 2002. Of course, this info is provided by the banks themselves.
Claims that The New York Times (and other newspapers which published stories about this program) disclosed information about banking surveillance which could help terrorists are factually false. Nobody can identify a single sentence in any of these stories which disclosed meaningful information that terrorists would not have previously known or which they could use to evade detection. To the extent that it is (ludicrously) asserted that the more they are reminded of such surveillance, the more they will remember it, nobody has spoken more openly and publicly about the Government's anti-terrorism surveillance programs than a campaigning George Bush.
In this regard, the bloodthirsty calls for Bill Keller and other editors and reporters to rot in a federal penitentiary are simply outside the scope of rational thought. Similar calls have issued in response to the Times' oh-so-shocking disclosure that the U.S. Government eavesdrops on the telephone calls of terrorists, even though the President himself ran around for several years boasting about -- and detailing -- our efforts to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls of terrorists. Here is George Bush, on June 9, 2005, in Columbus, Ohio, disclosing to the terrorists that they can no longer change cell phones as a means to evade our surveillance:
One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals.
Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses.
We've endured six months now of increasingly shrill and vicious assaults on the nation's media, whereby any journalist who publishes information which George Bush wants to conceal is branded a traitor and a criminal deserving of imprisonment, if not worse. And all of it is based upon a plainly false factual premise -- that these stories are disclosing information which can help the terrorists evade surveillance because they are disclosing critical operational details of our surveillance programs. Which information specifically has been disclosed that: (a) was not previously disclosed and (b) can help terrorists evade detection? There is none.
Thus, all anyone has to do to realize the sheer falsity of those claims is to compare the "treasonous" articles in question to prior public statements and documents from the Bush administration. Terrorists already knew that we were attempting to eavesdrop on their telephone calls because the Bush administration repeatedly talked about our surveillance programs. And, for the same reason, terrorists already knew that we were monitoring banking transactions -- including specifically those effectuated through SWIFT. And yet we are subjected to an increasingly frenzied lynch mob insisting that reporters have committed treason without their ever really being challenged by the media itself over these factually false claims.
None of this has to do with anger over "helping the terrorists." The articles in question so plainly do nothing of the sort. The anger that is unleashed by the media doing its job is the by-product of a belief that the Bush administration should be able to act in complete secrecy, with no checks or oversight of any kind. And it is equally grounded in the twisted view that American interests are synonymous with the political interests of the Bush administration, such that harming the latter is, by definition, to harm the former. In this view -- which has predominated over the last five years -- to oppose the Bush administration's "national security" policies is, by definition, to act against the United States and aid and abet The Terrorists.
The media is guilty of publishing stories which might harm the political interests of the President, not which could harm the national security of the United States. But Bush supporters recognize no such distinction. Harming the "Commander-in-Chief in a time of war" is, to them, synonymous with treason. Hence, we have calls for the imprisonment of our national media for reporting stories which tell terrorists nothing of significance which they did not already know, but which instead, merely provoke long-overdue democratic debates about whether we want to be a country in which we place blind trust in the administration to act in total secrecy.
(2) The reason there is "no evidence of abuse" is precisely because the administration exercises these powers in total secrecy.
One of the most favorably cited articles over the last few days by Bush supporters urging the imprisonment of journalists was this angry screed from Michael Barone, entitled "The New York Times at war with America." The heart of the argument is this claim:
Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical.
If it were the case that the Bush administration were abusing its surveillance and intelligence-gathering powers -- by, for instance, spying on innocent Americans or gathering data on the private lives of its political opponents -- how would we possibly know? How would it ever become something other than a "theoretical" concern? It couldn't be.
The whole point -- the one which The New York Times is attempting finally to examine -- is that we have previously decided as a nation that we want our Government to engage in aggressive intelligence-gathering activities against our enemies, but we trust the Government to do so only with active and vigilant oversight from other branches to ensure that there is no abuse, and do not trust these powers to be exercised in secret. That was the whole point, for instance, of FISA -- passed 95-1 by the Senate 28 years ago. We want the Government to engage in aggressive eavesdropping, but only trust it to do so with judicial oversight, precisely because allowing the Government to do so in secret means that we will never discover abuse of those powers.
To assert that we need not worry about anything because there is "no evidence of abuse" -- that we should keep our heads down and go about our business -- is plainly, even painfully, illogical. The reason we don't want the Government to be able to act without oversight is precisely because they can then abuse its powers without being detected, i.e., without there being any "evidence of abuse." If the Bush administration exercises these powers with no governmental oversight -- as it does -- how does Michael Barone think there would be any evidence of abuse if, in fact, the administration was abusing its power?
Administrations of both parties systematically abused its eavesdropping powers for 40 years without detection precisely because it operated in secrecy. The reason why it is dangerous to allow the Government to act in secrecy -- to troll at will through our financial transactions and listen in on our telephone conversations -- is precisely because there is no way to learn of abuses. To assert, as Barone has, that abuse is "only theoretical" is to illustrate why oversight is needed, not to demonstrate that it is unnecessary.
The defining ethos of our country is a distrust of government power -- or at least it always used to be. The entirety of the Constitution is devoted to imposing safeguards against government abuses because our country was founded upon the principle that we do not place blind faith in political officials to act properly. But the argument being peddled now is that we can place blind trust in the Bush administration and we need not worry ourselves about anything. At the very least, such a dramatic reversal of how we think about our government ought to be the subject of debate. That is the "public interest" to which Bill Keller is referring when explaining why the Times ran this story. And that is precisely what the media is supposed to do.
(3) The Founders unequivocally opted for excess disclosures by the media over excess government secrecy and restraints on the press.
These debates over the media are not new. A free press, publishing government secrets, has been the enemy of governments wherever a free press existed. It is supposed to be that way. The reason the Founders guaranteed a free press is to ensure that there would be an adversary of the Government, an entity which uncovers and discloses government conduct which political leaders want to conceal. As a result, it was hardly unforeseen by the Founders that the Government would be hostile and resentful of the press. Hostility and adversarial struggles were supposed to be an intrinsic attribute of the government-press relationship.
And the Founders equally recognized that, as a result of this inherent conflict, the Government would attempt to do exactly what the Bush administration and its supporters are now actively pursuing -- that is, using governmental power (such as the power of anti-press legislation, prosecution and/or imprisonment) to forcibly limit what the media can report and/or to intimidate them from reporting facts which the Government wanted to conceal. The Constitution resolves that conflict in favor of the press in the First Amendment to the Constitution by making the prohibition on anti-press government restraints absolute and unambiguous.
Bush supporters want nothing less than to re-visit the Founders' resolution and reverse it. They want to replace the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin with regard to press freedoms with the superior judgment of Dick Cheney, Congressman Peter King and Michelle Malkin, who want to imprison reporters for what they publish. They simply don't believe in the same principles that the Founders embraced and enshrined for our country. These observations from Jefferson simply leave no doubt about that:
Jefferson warned:
"Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."
And in the debate over whether to favor excessive disclosure or excessive government secrecy, Jefferson left little doubt as to how that conflict was resolved by the Founders: in choosing "government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."
Bush supporters plainly disagree with both assessments. They believe in government power that cannot be checked by the press, at least under this administration. The government can act in total secrecy, and journalists ought to be imprisoned if they disclose information which the President decrees should be kept secret. They believe that the Bush administration should be able to dictate what the media reports (as Michael Barone revealingly complained: "Once again, Bush administration officials asked the Times not to publish the story. Once again, the Times went ahead anyway"). That is a theory of government which has been advocated by other countries. But it has never previously taken hold in the United States. It is now close to doing exactly that.
(4) How can any rational person believe that the reporters and editors of The New York Times want to help terrorists attack the U.S.?
After the 9/11 attacks, it became a common topic of discussion among residents of New York City as to which sites were the most likely targets for future terrorist attacks -- bridges, subways, tourist attractions, centers of commerce, etc.? Virtually everyone recognized that one of the most obvious targets for terrorists is Times Square, which has everything a terrorist could want -- symbolic value, great economic impact, a locale in the heart of America's most important city, and a permanently congested square always packed full with residents, workers, and tourists.
The reason the intersection of 42nd Street and Broadway has the name "Times Square" is because it is the home of The New York Times. There are few people more at risk in the event of a future terrorist attack then the reporters and editors of The Times, who work (and often live) in the middle of Manhattan, at the epicenter of one of the most obvious terrorist targets in the country. Nobody would be less likely to want to aid terrorists in committing a terrorist attack than the reporters and editors of The New York Times. That's just obvious. And yet all sorts of people who live and work in distant places that are far less likely to ever be the target of a terrorist attack so whimsically and stupidly accuse the journalists at the Times of wanting to help terrorists stage attacks against America.
That is the level of discourse and reasoning flooding the airwaves and public debates. Accordingly, the reporters of the Times are not publishing these stories because they believe that Americans ought to know about and debate the Bush administration's secret, oversight-less intelligence-gathering programs. No -- it's because they are enemies of the United States, they hate Americans, and they want to help The Terrorists stage attacks on this country (of which they are the most likely targets). To see the face of genuinely demented Orwellian hate rituals, behold these posters published by Michelle Malkin launching accusations against and urging attacks on The New York Times. All of this is truly the stuff of hysterical, deranged, hateful lynch mobs -- not of rational discussions -- and yet it is driving radical changes in how our country functions.
UPDATE: It really seems as though there is some sort of unannounced competition among Bush supporters to out-do one another in making increasingly rabid, extremist, and truly deranged claims. Powerline's Scott Johnson, for instance, says that waging war on The New York Times has now become a critical "front" in the War on Terror. Seriously:
If America is going to wage a war against terrorism, it must indeed act on all fronts. In 2006, it needs to act on the home front and direct its attention to those whose war on the administration is unconstrained by the espionage laws of the United States.
We can't just confine our war-making to the terrorists and their friends overseas, but must also wage war here at home against the terrorists on our own soil, such as The New York Times. Johnson is arguing that what the administration has been doing "to the terrorists" in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Eastern European gulags -- the other "fronts" in the War on Terror -- it must now begin doing to the terrorists and their allies within our own borders, such as American newspaper editors and reporters.
And National Review's editors yesterday urged that for the Times and "other publications which act irresponsibly . . . their press credentials should be withdrawn." Presumably, the only reporters who should be allowed onto government property would be Byron York, Sean Hannity and Jeff Gannon. Already, Dick Cheney confines his "interviews" to obsequious Administration worshippers such as Brit Hume, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham. We are in a (undeclared, permanent, endless) War, and unfriendly journalism is simply not a luxury we can afford.
This is the single most incisive and informative essay I've read on these press issue. This is why I come here every day, why this blog is one of the most important political voices in America. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDeleteYou missed this letter to the editor:
Dear Mr. Keller:
Thank you so much for letting the whole world know how the Republican-run government is using the SWIFT system to track terrorists' (and who knows who else's?) international money transfers. The arrogance of this administration shows no bounds, as does their utter disdain for both the laws that require warrants for any inquiry whatsoever -- not to mention the status of the New York Times. While a few additional terrorist operations may or may not happen, they are none too high a price to pay for making sure that the Bush administration and particularly Karl Rove and the rest of the evildoers are hounded at every corner for the next two and a half years.
There should be a zero-tolerance policy for Republicans; let freedom ring!
Joel Rosenberg
A little too subtle, maybe?
http://joel-rosenberg.livejournal.com/
79484.html#cutid1
This is a great post. Once again, you have starkly delineated the issues using logic and fact. I love reading your blog.
ReplyDeleteOne note: "pubic knowledge?" ;-)
bart - there must be some slimeball child-molester of drunk drive that killed a busload of children that need your rhetorical "skills."
ReplyDeleteI also have to wonder about the involvement of the other papers, the LA Times and The Wall Street Journal who both published articles on this subject at the same time (Thursday night) as the NYT. According to this story, http://tinyurl.com/kykmz , "The Wall Street Journal received no request to withhold the story, said Daniel Hertzberg, a senior deputy managing editor." Now if publishing this story would be so "devastating" to our efforts to track terrorist financing, why would the Journal not have been asked to kill its story?
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for letting the whole world know how the Republican-run government is using the SWIFT system to track terrorists'
ReplyDeleteThe post I just wrote contains ample documentation that it has long been publicly known that the U.S. Government monitors international banking transactions through SWIFT in order to detect the activities of terrorists.
Given that, what excuse -- other than a complete disregard for the truth -- is there for asserting that it was the NYT's article that "let() the whole world know how the Republican-run government is using the SWIFT system to track terrorists"
There is one point you consistently made here that I think some of us are having difficulty internalizing and accepting: that these calls for imprisoning and silencing (perhaps in the terminal sense) journalists who are reporting on the administration are (a) sincere, and (b) motivated by a belief structure completely beyond the scope of rational thought.
ReplyDeleteWe here are (for the most part) the calm and rational sort who expect the same from (again for the most part) the rest of humanity. Its difficult enough to grasp the concept of those willing to kill themselves in suicide bombings, but at least we make the effort to do so; this doesn't make us 'terrorist lovers' as it allows us to perhaps seek more intelligent means of protecting ourselves from further bombings.
These calls however, made by American citizens no less, are so completely at odds with both the founding principles of our nation *and* basic human decency that we perhaps wish to dismiss them as fringe looney-tunes who don't mean what they say.
At least that's what I thought until this past Sunday. I confess I missed most of the talk shows, but what little I saw was enough to make me wonder just when I'd fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole without noticing.
Exactly how did we come to this point as a country? And what can we expect next? A return to old-fashioned lynching?
Any other thoughts, anyone?
HWSNBN is confused:
ReplyDeleteYou missed this letter to the editor:
Dear Mr. Keller:...
Nah. That's some blog. Here's a LTTE. You might think that HWSNBN could discern the difference, but you'd be wrong.
Cheers,
Exactly how did we come to this point as a country? And what can we expect next? A return to old-fashioned lynching?
ReplyDeleteGreat questions, Yankee. The discussions over the weekend over whether to string up the New York Times were so intense, widespread, hateful and UNCHALLENGED that it was really surreal, like one was in a different country. And the ones who drove and led the discussion were JOURNALISTS themselves.
"Rational thought" is certainly not one of the earmarks of the Bush administration (or bart..). That's why they can so easily endorse "destroying our freedoms to protect our freedoms".
ReplyDeleteGreat post.
It is truly amazing that news media organizations like the NY Times, LA Times, and the Wash Post continue to carry the Bush Admin's water time and time again (see last weeks "stories" re : DEMS not unified on Iraq War/ Repubs unified on Iraq War, the Miami 7 debacle, and also a lack of major reporting of David Savafian verdict, not to mention the endless war cheerlaeading during the lead up to the Iraq War)...
ReplyDeleteWhat really shocks me is that these news media organizations will then sit back and allow GWB and the rest of the Repubs call for their imprisonment for treason at the drop of a hat when the reporting does not suit the GWB "great protector" narrative...
When will they say enough is enough.....
This issue highlights the larger point that this admin and Karl Rove only know one way to operate and that is on the offensive....this whole thing is really a non story since GWB has publically stated that the US will track the terrorists finances thru the banking industry....but since they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to be positive about, this is the best Rove could do....anything to make GWB look like he is the "tough", "the man's man", "the fighter", "the defender"
...It is really is cheap and pathetic ploy to pick on a newspaper....and really shows how weakened this adminstration has become.......
-l4
I have to wonder if the only (or at least most compelling) reason motivating republicans is the fear of what would come out and not how this impacts the GWOT. If they weren't so tied to Bush's apron strings, pathalogically attached to the "looking strong" and "fighting terrorists" narrative and if this was a different president I wonder how they would be reacting. They have to defend this, they have to hope that it stays a secret, they have to talk about how reavealing these types are programs is helping terrorists because if they don't, they have to admit their complicity and how much they really find the Constitution inconvenient for political purposes (which is ironic because generally they like to believe they are the only party to truly uphold the Constitution and only they are defenders of the U.S.). And anyway it is quite possible that they will be dead (or at least out of office) when the "law of unintended consequences" hits this country with a sledgehammer and the fruits of their labor/yammering come to fruition.
ReplyDeleteI guess fear (of failure, discovery, self image, terrorism) trumps reason. Like that true patriot Sen. Pat Roberts likes to opine - "You have no civil liberties if you're dead."
Anyone know of any decent studies done on groupthink leading to societal violence? It might be helpful to see if there are any signposts we can watch for.
ReplyDeleteyankee: [T]hese calls for imprisoning and silencing (perhaps in the terminal sense) journalists who are reporting on the administration are (a) sincere, and (b) motivated by a belief structure completely beyond the scope of rational thought.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the strategy is simple: The Right-wing hate-mongers use every rhetroical means possible to evoke a feeling of disgust in the rightwing reader/believer. This disgust is to be channeled at these left-wingers who supoosedly exhibit no shame in their hatred for the US and their support for the terrorists.
That the rhetroic is an appeal to emotions is no big deal--Glenn appeals to the emotions of anger and fear in asking us to direct our attention to this danger. These emotions, though, are open to reason and can be diverted into socially constructive behavior.
Disgust, though, is inherently maladaptive to reasoned argument. Instead it accepts the notion that the feelings it is based on are more honest and authentic than reason. It is from this basis in human sensibility that the Right-wing fans the flames of disgust. Disgust is easily directed at groups and branding those groups as subhuman and unworthy of respect and basic human concern.
To broaden these comments somewhat, the attacks on the press are part of a alrger plan to undermine every means of rational debate and discussion. Once mistrust is sowed, once reason is poisoned with mistrust and distrust, then the appeal to the more irrational emotions like disgust will become more successful.
Bush's dilema is that as Americans being to take the duct tape off the windows of their "secure" rooms and peer out into the world, what we've been jumping up and down about for years is just filtering onto their radar screen. Bush doesn't want to stir the pot and have the American masses become aware so he's once again killing the messenger. Smokin' mirrors.
ReplyDeleteAfter George "Faux-Tex" Bush's fit-of-pique show:
ReplyDelete"Congress was briefed. And what we did was fully authorized under the law. And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America. What we were doing was the right thing. Congress was aware of it, and we were within the law to do so.
"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. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the government be robust in tracing money. If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, 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."
I don't have to wonder anymore. Fascism isn't creeping any more. It struts and snorts, parading its ignorance and arrogance.
What a country, what a world. Get your helmets and your passports ready, folks, this is the man who is in charge.
I look for angry mobs sporting burning torches.
ReplyDeleteAll "kidding" aside, even my 84-year old Dad (what used to be called a "conservative Democrat") has broached the topic of armed civil unrest as a definite probability.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that even though the information was previously known it is dangerous to repeat as the terrorists have more chances of hearing it is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteCertainly the best way to prevent this type of thing from happening is to elevate a newspaper article discussing the information from the printed page to the national airwaves. I mean, it is so dangerous to repeat the information in the press, that the administration cannot simply let ignore it and confine it to one day in the printed media--no, they must let everyone in America and elsewhere know about it for a full week of non-stop coverage.
Via RawSory:
ReplyDelete"The Slimes [sic] and its puppets in the MSM ARE THE ENEMY. They simply hate America as it is. They want a socialist-homosexual utopia. Thus, they are simply aiding and abetting their faithful followers abroad and here. They are giving intel to their friends of gee-had. They are the enemy. Problem is, many Americans simply do not know or care."
"Any retired snipers out there?"
"They are, without a doubt our enemy. We need to treat them as such."
"I think it will be dangerous for a Slimes [sic] reporter to step foot out of Manhattan."
Glenn asked "How can any rational person believe that the reporters and editors of The New York Times want to help terrorists attack the U.S.?"
ReplyDeleteThe answer is that extreme irrationality is driving these chuckleheads to accuse the NYT, Democrats, and other critics of Der Fuhrer of treason.
The Coulters, Hannitys, Roves, Cheneys, Bushes, and others like them have reduced the debate to the simplest terms: "you're either with us or against us."
not of rational discussions
ReplyDeleteI was going to write something about Malkin and the propaganda posters that she has plastered all over her blog at the moment. Its very telling that when she feels passionate about an issue to make a point she would turn to propaganda (true propaganda from the good old days before it became "Public Relations") which is by design supposed to get a person to believe something without thinking about it.
TBogg had a good post on this.
Also, for those who didn't get the MalkinMemo, the WarWord of the Week is: "blabbermouth", to be added to "unhinged", "moonbat", "boo-freaking-hoo", and "wah-bulance" and should be giddily repeated over and over and over again just like a three year-old who has just learned to say "poopy".
It was reassuring to see I wasn't the only one to notice the irony of Malkin showing a racist WWII propaganda cartoon.
Great post Glenn. The reason these people feel the need to so viciously go on the offensive is to perpetrate their long held opinion that they are the ones who people try to silence and that 'they will not be silenced'! The so-called 'liberal media' is just another form of the arguement of "the attack on Christmas", meanwhile conservative Christians have never had more power in society. Add to that the fact that our 'traditional values' are under attack (supposedly) even though so-called value voters are the ones who put the current President in place...the country is run by their chosen elected officials, if values are under attack, it is not from liberals. Its the same thing as blaming the media for reporting the bad news from Iraq, "swift boating" the generals who have come out to criticize the administration and Rumsfeld and the list goes on. For God's sake, it is NEVER their fault. Even though these programs have been widely discussed by administration officials previously, if the terrorists find out, its NOT their fault, its the NYT. Its all part of the same mental disorder...inability to admit error.
ReplyDeleteThis is really a great post, but I'm still pretty pessimistic, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteIf decades of living in this country haven't convinced people that freedom of the press is a good thing and that checks and balances are the only way to prevent abuse, I don't know what will.
I'm scared.
This is rich—apparently to inform the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee of this long-standing program, it had to be leaked to The New York Times. Let’s hear it for Congressional oversight!
ReplyDeleteThe ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Monday that she and many of her colleagues on the committee were briefed on the program by Treasury Department officials only after the administration learned that it would be exposed in the media.
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said she did not learn about the transaction-monitoring program until last month, even though it has been in operation since shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
A spokesman for the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), said the lawmaker was briefed on the program shortly after he became chairman in 2004.
Hume's Ghost...I also saw the posters over at Malkins. What struck me was not her absolutely maniacal anger over the NYT story...I disagree with her, but she has a right to her opinion. It was the fact that all that outrage is directed at the NY Times yet she has zero outrage over things like Abu Ghraib and actively supports Guantanamo knowing the evidence of toture that are out there. Absolutely zero outrage. Nope, the NYT are traitors and the outrage is palpable. The US resorting to torture of detainees, call the 'wah-bulance". sad really.
ReplyDeleteI guess I’m a little less worked up about this than others. It’s clearly an orchestrated effort to rouse the right wing masses, presumably for the fall elections, and in my mind, it’s a a bit too over the top. It’s too easy to show, using the sources Glenn points out, and others, that there simply is no basis to the Administration’s principal assertion, that the Times’ (and others’) articles disclose anything new about what our intelligence agencies are doing to gather financial information. In fact, all of this information was previously disclosed by members of the Administration themselves. These newspapers just have a wider audience, and different take on that information. The best response, in my opinion, is to state, over and over and over again - HEY, ‘the terrorists already had this information and it was provided to them by this Administration’, and HEY, rightwingers, when are you going to get tired of being so obviously manipulated?
ReplyDeleteAny other thoughts, anyone?
ReplyDeleteYup, I think they are lying liars and/or stupid
Off topic. To Glenn and the other frontpagers. I love this blog. Thank you all for the work you do.
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest one small improvement. To make it easier to follow (and easier to cite), I wish each of you would always include the date and your byline at the top of each entry. Thank you.
Like that true patriot Sen. Pat Roberts likes to opine - "You have no civil liberties if you're dead."
ReplyDeleteJohn Cornyn said that too. I see a veiled threat in these sort of statements: "you're lucky we even let you live."
An excellent analysis! I went ahead and submitted this to digg.com. Any digg users out there, digg this article so it can more exposure.
ReplyDeleteDigg here
Incidentally, this may be taboo here, but The New Republic has a suite of really great articles on conservatives in the latest issue.
ReplyDeleteRich Perlstein documents pretty convincingly that "conservative culture" is based largely on "annoying liberals" and pretending to be oppressed. It's pretty insightful.
Michelle Cottle has a hilarious article on the latest batch of conservative "children's books."
Jon Chait has an interesting post on why the right-wing noise machine works better than the left-wing one. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but it's definitely interesting.
Here's (a modified version of) my comments from that thread:
Reading the current edition of Cato or NR or the Weekly Standard or the WSJ ed page really isn't all that different from reading back issues. You just have to switch out a few keywords and annecdotes as the issues change. There really aren't that many different ways of applying their principles, so their arguments against taxes are the same as their arguments against social security, which are the same as their arguments against public education. Government is bad. Taxes kill the economy. Redistribution is immoral. Repeat. If facts are available, they'll be thrown in for good measure. If facts are unavailable, they'll be invented. I love the way Jeffrey Friedman put it in Critical Review (he was talking about libertarians): they have such rigid ideologies that they have a "perpetual obligation to defend" their position on every subject, even "before one has the necessary information to assess its accuracy."
The arguments don't change with circumstances. The only possible exception is when one stock argument (say, the liberty argument) is overriden by another stock argument (say, the right-to-life argument). That's the way ideology works, and that's what the conservative think-tanks have been good at.
We can't compete with these organizations on their terms. We don't want the debate to be about big government versus small government or other "big ideas." We don't have a big enough counterweight that applies across the board. If we're on the side of big government, we'll lose. We need to smother, eviscerate, and/or ridicule the right's "big ideas" (i.e. their slogans and the arguments deduced from them) before the debate can actually begin.
That's not to say we don't need principles. I just don't think that there's a shortage of those on our side, though. People should have health care, a fair start in life, reasonable compensation for their work and not be exploited by corporations, etc.
I think those ideas are appealing enough that they would catch on quickly. The problem is that they're currently getting smothered by Malkinesque shitstorms before they get a chance.
We need to go on the offensive, and rip the assumptions behind conservatives' arguments apart. I think that's the only way.
Glen, this is easily the best analysis written so far (perhaps the best since the 1780s)on the dangers of government efforts to muzzle any press that does not toe the current Administration's line.
ReplyDeleteI am not suprised that many on the right would leap at this opportunity to bash the NYT and denounce the treasonous "liberal media." Although we should note there are some notable exceptions, such as Joe Scarborough, last night, who said that a free independent press is the best defense of liberty, and distanced himself from Coulter, who call the NYT treasonous. With a few exceptions, they are a lost cause, defenders of another set of "principles" alien to those on which the country was founded.
What is dismaying is the meek silence of the press itself. How can they stand by and have the very basis of their independence attacked openly by this Administration and its followers? Can't even a Lou Dobbs see that his ability to rant against the Administration's immigration policies is seriously threatened by the arguments Bush/Cheney are putting forward? How can he square their attacks on the NYT wrt to "helping the terrorists" with his campaign against the Dubai Ports deal?
Or how can a Chris Matthews, disgusted as he is at the lying that misled the country into war, not openly challenge an Administration that seeks to muzzle the independent media who, since the Miller fiasco, has done much to expose the government's duplicty wrt to pre-war intelligence? And where is the WSJ, whose editorial policies often ridicule the Administration whenever it sees the President compromising on unfettered principles of free trade?
It is not just the NYT whose independence is being threated here. It's is everyone's.
"On every cable news show, pundits and even journalists talked openly about whether the editors and reporters of the Times were traitors deserving criminal punishment."
ReplyDeleteA true Pandora's box if there ever was one. What true journalist would want to start down this road?
You can count me among those who worry that all these calls for violence might start getting answered in the near future. With Michelle Malkin having set the stage, another successful terrorist attack could end up ripping this country apart. Which would suit the terrorists just fine.
ReplyDeletein the near future, with Michelle Malkin having set the stage, another successful terrorist attack could end up ripping this country apart. Which would suit the terrorists just fine.
ReplyDeleteIt's been said before, but it's worth saying again: Al Qaeda cannot destroy this country, but we can -- and we're well on the way.
Let the War to Free Ou Press begin.
ReplyDeleteCuz that's the only damn war these guys are winning.
Please, everybody, link to this & push the FRAK back.
http://www.texaskos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=827
(can't remember the password)
well argued. I hope you keep this thread going as it will need repeated rebuttals of stupid by voiciferious appeals that attemp to drown the voice of reason.
ReplyDeleteHostility and adversarial struggles were supposed to be an intrinsic attribute of the government-press relationship.
But what they did not see was the tools a government can use to win this battle. Repub' team also has a hold on the visual media that reach the homes and hence shape public opinion in their favor.
The last point is badly argued. You cannot argue that the repubs who had lived in NYC and called for all kinds of hate mongering have not in their actions weakened democratic values and hence 'aided and abeted the enemies of democratic freedom'.
That the Cheney Administration has nothing but contempt for the press is clear and always has been.
ReplyDeleteTheir current kabuki however is strictly about the upcoming elections. Much better to move the conversation to treason and fifth columns than Iraq and competence.
The press is so excited to be invited to the party they don't seem to care that they're on the menu.
It's the attack of the Banana Republicans!
ReplyDeleteIs this how Latin Americans feel as their countries slide into banana republics?
There's a guy who's the President, and he's kind of funny because he dresses up in uniforms and gets his picture taken with soldiers (of course, never having fought, himself). He cites vague precedents that justify him making up his own laws (and ignoring ones he doesn't like), he tortures people, he suggests his political opponents are effeminate (and like teh gay!), he ignores science and makes up his own facts.
He's totally incompetent when it comes to actually getting results, but his rhetoric never quits. And he is, of course, the lone bulwark protecting us all against the enemies who are simultaneously weak and endlessly resourceful, and who are determined to get us. Everyone not in uniform helps the cause not by actually doing anything, but by "supporting" him personally, and all his actions uncritically. Anyone who actually questions his tactics is a "hater" if their critiques are vague, and aiding the nebulous and nefarious enemies if their critiques are specific. Let's arrest newspapermen who print things that make el Presidente look bad!
Seriously, down to his total inability to speak coherent English, Bush governs like a cheezy Latin American dictator.
When is the media going to start treating these guys like the banana republicans they are?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhy are journalists supporting this?
ReplyDeleteThat's the way facism works. Yes, each totalitarian state has a single figure "absolute" ruler but that person still relies on many other people to keep them in power. What do they get out of it? They are elevated above the masses they help to control.
For a democracy to fall into facism it takes a tipping point, where sane, rational people start to feel that facism is inevitable, nothing can stop it and they may as well get on board earlier when they can earn rewards or avoid being put against a wall than later when the wall will be their reward for protesting.
It's a question of belief. Some of the journalists going along with this are just unaware or underplaying the danger. Perhaps these individuals never do investigative reporting so they think this will be narrowly confined to leaking classified documents, and thus, not a threat to them.
Others see it as the way things are going and are fully intent on being part of the ruling elite, not apart from it "Meh, democracy is all but finished anyway, I might as well get my piece of the pie"
Facism doesn't happen in a vacuum, and it takes a lot of cynical people to make it happen.
That's why journalists support it. They are part of the establishment, not adversaries of it.
Anyone know of any decent studies done on groupthink leading to societal violence? It might be helpful to see if there are any signposts we can watch for.
ReplyDelete12:36 PM
'studies?'
dunno...but you should check out Adorno on the 'authoritarian' personality...
I neglected to say, btw:
ReplyDeletethe USer 'press' has not been free for better than a century.
in the corporate state, corporate media are--by definition--state media.
(and when did posting require a sobriety test? fegtswnw? wtf?
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteThe clear rationale underlying the arguments of Bush supporters needs to be highlighted. They believe that the Bush administration ought to be allowed to act in complete secrecy, with no oversight of any kind...And anyone who prevents them from acting in total secrecy is not merely an enemy of the Bush administration, but of the United States, i.e., is a traitor.
I notice whenever you launch into one of your hyperbolic rants that there are never any links to be found. Find me a single "Bush supporter" who has ever said this. Otherwise, withdraw it.
Glenn: (1) There is not a single sentence in the Times banking report that could even arguably "help the terrorists."
This really breaks down into two arguments:
(a) What the NYT published was already public knowledge and presumably not classified. (The Libby Defense).
You spend a great deal of time showing that it was public knowledge that the United States had programs to track terrorist financial transactions. Yet, none of your examples show that the means, methods, scope or limits of those programs were public.
You start with the counterterrorismblog:
Yesterday’s New York Times Story on US monitoring of SWIFT (Society for
Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transactions certainly hit the street with a splash. It awoke the general public to the practice. In that sense, it was truly new news. But reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002.
This blog admits that the information was not common knowledge and was generally restricted to terrorist finance experts such as the blogger.
This reminds me of the argument made by Fitzgerald that Plame's employment by the CIA was only known to the intelligence community, not the general public, and was thus still classified for the purposes of criminal prosecution.
counterterrorismblog continues:
The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website. Paragraph 31 of the report states:
"The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."
Exactly what does this tell al Qaeda concerning means, methods, scope and limits of the US program described by the NYT article? All it says is that" "The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions."
Next, you note that Mr. Bush stated: "See, part of the way to make sure that we catch terrorists is we chase money trails."
How, in heaven's name, does this Bush statement justify your hyperbolic claim: "they have repeatedly -- and in detail -- told the public, and therefore The Terrorists, all sorts of details of the counter-terrorism programs we have implemented, including -- from the President's mouth himself -- programs we have for monitoring international banking transactions???
Suggestions that SWIFT and other similar transactions should be monitored by investigative agencies dealing with terrorism, money laundering and other criminal activity have been out there for some time.
Suggestions that the United States perform a certain intelligence gathering technique does not mean that the United States is in fact using that technique.
One of the primary purposes of keeping the means, methods, scope and limits of our intelligence gathering programs classified is to keep the enemy guessing as to what intelligence gathering we are and are not performing so the enemy simply does not change his plans to avoid our surveillance.
We cannot perform every intelligence gathering technique in all places at all times and the enemy cannot defend against everything. Thus, this is a game of poker where it is critical that that the enemy does not see our cards if we are going to carry off our bluffs.
Of course, this info is provided by the banks themselves.
Of course it is. That hardly makes it public knowledge.
Indeed, the NYT itself makes the best argument that the information you have listed above was not public knowledge to al Qeada:
The Swift data has provided clues to terror money trails and ties between possible terrorists and organizations financing them, the officials said. In some instances, they said, the program has pointed them to new suspects, while in others it has buttressed cases already under investigation.
Among the successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said.
In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said.
The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, prosecutors said....
Here is the second argument you make under this heading...
(b) The NYT did not reveal anything useful to the enemy.
Are you really serious? The NYT published a detailed roadmap for al Qaeda telling them exactly what is and is not being monitored. Here is what the NYT published concerning the means, methods, scope and limits of this government tracking of enemy financial transfers:
The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas or into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database...
Officials described the Swift program as the biggest and most far-reaching of several secret efforts to trace terrorist financing. Much more limited agreements with other companies have provided access to A.T.M. transactions, credit card purchases and Western Union wire payments, the officials said...
Data from the Brussels-based banking consortium, formally known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, has allowed officials from the C.I.A., the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies to examine "tens of thousands" of financial transactions, Mr. Levey said...
Swift's database provides a rich hunting ground for government investigators. Swift is a crucial gatekeeper, providing electronic instructions on how to transfer money between 7,800 financial institutions worldwide. The cooperative is owned by more than 2,200 organizations, and virtually every major commercial bank, as well as brokerage houses, fund managers and stock exchanges, uses its services. Swift routes more than 11 million transactions each day, most of them across borders.
The cooperative's message traffic allows investigators, for example, to track money from the Saudi bank account of a suspected terrorist to a mosque in New York. Using intelligence tips about specific targets, agents search the database in what one official described as a "24-7" operation. Customers' names, bank account numbers and other identifying information, can be retrieved, the officials said.
The data does not allow the government to track routine financial activity, like A.T.M. withdrawals, confined to this country, or to see bank balances, Treasury officials said. And the information is not provided in real time - Swift generally turns it over several weeks later. Because of privacy concerns and the potential for abuse, the government sought the data only for terrorism investigations and prohibited its use for tax fraud, drug trafficking or other inquiries, the officials said....
The F.B.I. began acquiring financial records from Western Union and its parent company, First Data Corporation...
In sum, the NYT has disclosed to al Qaeda:
1) The exact types of international transactions we are tracking through Swift.
2) The limited parties we are tracking through Swift.
3) The volume of traffic we are monitoring through Swift. This enables the enemy to derive the percentage of traffic we are surveilling for their risk analysis.
4) The types of targets being surveilled through Swift.
5) The exact types of domestic transactions we are not monitoring through Swift.
6) The domestic financial companies which are cooperating with the government and the transaction information those companies are providing.
The NYT hangs itself with far more than a "single sentence." It would be easy to draft a lengthy criminal indictment for violation of the Espionage Act simply by quoting the NYT at length.
Glenn: (2) The reason there is "no evidence of abuse" is precisely because the administration exercises these powers in total secrecy.
Glenn: The whole point -- the one which The New York Times is attempting finally to examine -- is that we have previously decided as a nation that we want our Government to engage in aggressive intelligence-gathering activities against our enemies, but we trust the Government to do so only with active and vigilant oversight from other branches to ensure that there is no abuse...
This is the weak argument offered by the NYT editor, Bill Keller, yesterday after he returned from his one day "vacation" from responding to the barrage of inquiries concerning this article.
However, the NYT itself admits that the congressional intel committee tasked with oversight as well as the 9/11 commission and the Swift board of directors were all briefed on this program on an ongoing basis.
The NYT has simply added al Qaeda to the list of groups now able to perform oversight on this program.
Glenn: (3) The Founders unequivocally opted for excess disclosures by the media over excess government secrecy and restraints on the press.
Glenn: These debates over the media are not new. A free press, publishing government secrets, has been the enemy of governments wherever a free press existed. It is supposed to be that way. The reason the Founders guaranteed a free press is to ensure that there would be an adversary of the Government, an entity which uncovers and discloses government conduct which political leaders want to conceal.
Show me a single instance where any Founder argued that the Press had a duty or a right to publish the details of classified intelligence gathering aimed at an enemy?
Show me a single court which has ever held that public disclosure of classified intelligence gathering is a right protected under the First Amendment?
Indeed, show me a single instance where a newspaper has published the details of multiple intelligence gathering programs aimed that the enemy during a war as the NYT has done here with the NSA and Swift programs?
What the NYT is doing here has no foundation in law or precedence in history.
(4) How can any rational person believe that the reporters and editors of The New York Times want to help terrorists attack the U.S.?
I would pose a counter question:
How can any rational editor or reporter at the NYT not understand that publication of this classified information would give aid and comfort to an enemy attacking our country during a time of war?
Indeed, the following passage from the NYT article is a complete admission that the NYT disclosed this information the enemy with considered intent:
Administration officials...asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.
Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
As I observed before, the NYT article itself is a criminal indictment of this rogue newspaper. All a prosecutor would need to do is fill in the appropriate sections of the Espionage Act and submit it to a grand jury.
The only thing holding back Justice is the politics of picking a fight with the Donkey media before an election.
Looks like we are well on our way to our very own Kristallnacht! Well done, Republicans! Three cheers!
ReplyDeleteI had always hoped David Neiwert was over-reacting. After this past weekend, I am now certain that he is on exactly the right track. My passport has been renewed, and I have a small bag packed. Please, somebody tell me I'm over-reacting. 'Cause I'm ready to get the fuck out of dodge, folks.
That's an amazingly incisive post, Glenn. I used to think that there was just no real possibility that the Administration would actually bring charges against the Times, and that this topic was just manufatured to froth up the base. But your exhaustive rebuttal also helps to highlight how dire the threat is by elucidating how contrary its motivations are to the very principles of our republic. Thanks for this necessary exercise in rationality and for your eloquence and hard work.
ReplyDeleteBart,
ReplyDelete1) What "time of war" are we in? Show me the act of congress declaring war.
2) Accepting your claim of congressional intel committee briefings on the face, I ask: How can you call that "oversight" when these members of congress cannot reveal the program, its details or express concern about it to anyone? "Oversight" requires the ability to stop it. How can congress stop the program, if the only people who know about it, and its possible abuses, are legally unable to tell anyone of it?
That's a legal conundrum right out of Heller.
The argument is not "weak" because you say so. Congress has (very limited) briefings on the subject, not oversight. Thus, it is still open to abuse. The briefer could say to the intel committees "We're spying on everyone, including you and you can't do shit about it" and that would constitute a briefing and he/she would be right.
Not to mention the ranking Democrats only got briefed once the administration knew the program would be revealed anyway.
The NY Times did its civic duty to report on this, even if there is risk of harm from terrorists. The threat to American freedoms represented by the US Government is far greater than the threat by Terrorists. The current power-expanding executive branch is the "clear and present danger." Terrorists are a problem, but not one that could end the rule of Law.
The only thing holding back Justice is the politics of picking a fight with the Donkey media before an election.
ReplyDeleteSo you're admitting that the Bush administration is cynically avoiding prosecuting what they believe to be a breach of national security because they're worried about the politics?
You are an apologist for cowardice.
I actually agree though, the Bush Admin really only does care about politics and winning elections. Doing the right thing despite the consequences never enters into their calculus.
There are hardly any "journalists" or "reporters" anymore. That is why there is no outcry. They are entertainers at best and at worst they are mouthpieces and facilitators for the power elite and the status quo.
ReplyDeleteThey are not deserving of the titles of "journalist" or "reporter". How 'bout a new title - Mediats.
If it's "treason" to point out that the Bush Administration is doing a wholesale Hoovering of the financial data of millions of Americans, then WHY are Bush and his right-wing press enablers only going after the NYT -- and not the more conservative and Bush-friendly papers like the Wall Street Journal and LA Times, which also published that news?
ReplyDeleteThe hypocritical right wingers have really cranked up the noise machine for this one. They want to cow the NYT back into pro-Bush submission. Let's crank back with the facts.
I think the work of Philip Zimbardo and the Prison Experiment at Stanford may be relevant, and Adorno.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prisonexp.org/
Mob psychology at wiki...
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_psychology
The wingnut notion that criticism of Bush "weakens" his image and therefore empowers and emboldens terrorists is as infantile and superstitious as the rest of conventional Republicult "wisdom".
ReplyDeleteWhat happens first and foremost when independently corroborated fact challenges the purported infallability of the First Gut is that it threatens to shatter the belief system of the Republicult in their divinely appointed leader. Of course this will be categorized as aiding terrorists because it terrifies them. I doubt they'd see anything weird about wanting the NY Times arrested, or any media source for the heresy of not fawning and propping up the First Figurehead.
Using terror, and painting all enemies as terrorists, to marshall power is BushCo's hallmark and M.O.
I can't believe we're the thrall of this baby-think. (My operating theory is that 9/11 so terrified Bush that he crawled right back into the primal womb and from that rarified environment, wants to arrest, destroy or bomb everything non-soothing that comes within his awareness.)
Bart --
ReplyDeleteHow 'bout the original leakers in the Bush admin?
How 'bout the other media outlets who published the same info?
Your thoughts? Any? Too inconvenient?
I think Glenn covers the issue very well. However, from what I've seen, there's been quite a bit of heat but very little light. I wonder, if they're so intent on prosecuting some of these leaks, why they haven't done so. Am I missing something? Is there something moving through the courts? Seems like it opens a whole can of worms with respect to the First amendment, executive privilege, war power authority, etc. that this administration just does not want to get into.
ReplyDeleteThank you to Mr. Greenwald et al for providing me with your clear, cogent take on the methods the Bush/Cheny administration employs as they run our ship-of-state.
ReplyDeleteThis president gives me nightmares. We are beyond the help of the gods themselves as he seems intent on setting a course between Scylla and Carybdis, only to run out of steam as we enter the straits between them. We the people are the last hope, e pluribus unum.
This looks promising, Yankee...
ReplyDeleteSmart People Working Collectively can be Dumber Than the Sum of their Brains.
'Groupthink' Is 30 Years Old, and Still Going Strong
JOHN SCHWARTZ and MATTHEW L. WALD / NY Times 9mar03
BTW, Frank Luntz has flip-flopped on global warming and is distancing himself from Bush. It's at Think Progress.
Dan said...
ReplyDeleteBart, 1) What "time of war" are we in? Show me the act of congress declaring war.
To start, being at war is not an element to prove either treason or a criminal violation of the Espionage Act. I included this observation because it makes the NYT moral culpability even deeper.
As for the act of Congress, check the AUMF.
2) Accepting your claim of congressional intel committee briefings on the face, I ask: How can you call that "oversight" when these members of congress cannot reveal the program, its details or express concern about it to anyone? "Oversight" requires the ability to stop it. How can congress stop the program, if the only people who know about it, and its possible abuses, are legally unable to tell anyone of it?
Defund the program. If there is any criminal act involved, impeach the President.
Congress has (very limited) briefings on the subject, not oversight.
How do you know the extent of the briefings given to Congress?
Not to mention the ranking Democrats only got briefed once the administration knew the program would be revealed anyway.
If this is like the NSA Program briefings, the leaders of both parties were briefed. None of the Dems on the intel committees are claiming they were shut out while their GOP counterparts were briefed.
Disenchanted Dave,
ReplyDeleteYou forgot the one on Ann Coulter.
Once upon a time, people were allowed to harbor all sorts of ugly prejudices against blacks, Jews, gays, Catholics, Mexicans, the Japanese, the Irish, uppity women--you name it. Ugly or not, it's human nature to pin your troubles on The Other--however you choose to define it. Can't find a job? Blame the Mexicans. Crime on the rise? Blame the blacks. Can't find an adequately adoring wife willing to put up with all your crap? Blame the feminists.
But increasingly it is socially unacceptable to badmouth individuals simply because they are members of a particular race, religion, ethnic group, etc.--or to attribute unflattering characteristics to such groups. You can decry what certain groups do--for instance, threatening the institution of marriage by (gasp!) demanding that two men be allowed to get hitched, or making a mockery of the law by sneaking across the U.S.-Mexican border in search of lousy jobs--but not who they are. Obviously old fashioned bigotry will never completely die out. But in today's stereotype-averse culture, there are fewer and fewer places where jokes about blacks/Mexicans/Jews being lazy/dishonest/greedy will earn you hearty laughs rather than uneasy glances--or a pop on the nose. And 9/11 angst notwithstanding, an overly broad remark about Arabs or Muslims can get you labeled an ass-backward bigot faster than you can say "Pat Robertson."
So what's an angry, frightened populace to do with all that pent-up desire to name-call and finger-point? Easy: Channel it at folks in the opposing political camp. For hard-right wing-nuts this means attributing every filthy characteristic imaginable to Democrats/Liberals/the left, ascribing venal motives to their every action, and blaming them for every misfortune to have befallen your beloved country over the past half century. Under the new rules of the game, you still can't deride Mexicans--but it's perfectly acceptable to deride liberals for pushing policies that allow Mexicans somehow to screw up your life. Ditto blacks, Asians, Eskimos, Episcopalians, and lesbians named Jackie. As a bonus, partyism can be rationalized as a more thoughtful brand of bigotry--since theoretically your hatred is an expression of political philosophy: You don't loathe liberals (or conservatives) for who they are but what they do. As practiced, of course, the phenomenon increasingly goes well beyond hating the sin into the realm of hating the sinner. Thanks to my Republican upbringing, I have long-time friends who sincerely believe that whatever Democrats/liberals/lefties do/believe/advocate by definition must be either irredeemably wicked or irretrievably stupid. (Some of them, I suspect, still pray for my full recovery.)
Dear Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI would suggest a slight change to your post, excellent though it is. In the second paragraph, you write that administration supporters are attacking "journalists who are hostile to the administration." While I think you mean to convey the way the administration's supporters view those journalists, it might be thought that you agree that these journalists are "hostile" to that administration. Surely that was not your intent. There is no apparent reason to suppose that holding the administration accountable amounts to being hostile to it.
Cheers,
Ump
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart -- How 'bout the original leakers in the Bush admin?
The leakers in the intelligence agencies may be the only ones held liable for this enormous breach of security.
I am afraid Bush is too chickensh*t to actually prosecute the media outlets who conspired to disclose this information to the enemy.
How 'bout the other media outlets who published the same info?
If you did the crime, do the time. I don't pick favorites.
In this case, the NYT had the story for weeks before any other paper. I suspect they allowed other papers to share the story on the same day to provide it legal cover.
On crowd psychology and violence, I believe that Elias Canetti's Crowds and Power is the standard text in this field.
ReplyDeleteFor Renee Girard's views on this subject, see Charles K Bellinger's study.
All of this is just disgusting.
ReplyDelete- Calls for legal action against publishers and journalists.
- Calls for journalists to reveal their sources.
- Concerted attacks on specific journalists.
- Insinuations that certain media outlets are coordinating attacks with political parties.
- Attacks against anyone who believes that excessive secrecy is counter to a functioning democracy.
- The belief that simply talking about certain subjects give aid and comfort to our enemies.
- The willful ignorance or misrepresentation of legal decisions and documents.
- The use of secrecy to control messages and topics of conversation.
Oh, that's right, we are talking about the Bush administration. The hypocrisy fills a room like Nag Champa. We have become the enemy. Maybe we always have been.
I think this is straight out of the Rove playbook -- turn your own weakness against your opponent -- but this time I think they're playing with fire.
ReplyDeleteIt is now well documented that Rove and/or Libby materially damaged national security by burning a CIA agent and her undercover network. That's pretty close to treason in anyone's book... and the public is dimily aware of it, and growing more so each day. A very effective October attack ad is just waiting to be made from it, should Dems decide to fight by Repub rules this time.
So now, this weekend, we're treated to the response: the Swift Boating of the NY Times (and notably, NOT the WS Journal). Fact-free invective whipped together with out-group paranoia. Unchallenged by the talking heads who steer the public discourse. Nothing will be proven, and obviously only a constitutional amendment could make these charges stick in court. But seeds of equivalence are sown in the public's mind, and the soil is prepared for future rebuttals of Rove/Libby treason with "the NY Times' treason".
And, frighteningly, as anger edges into the president's words and body language (shouting and jabbing the air with his finger yesterday), and as talk of snipers and Timothy McVeigh is allowed to fester on the right... the social fabric inches closer to flash point.
And the Right goes on playing with matches.
Eddy
What's funny is that all of the 2nd Amendment absolutists seem to fail to understand that, by the same logic by which the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendements(among others) may be abrogated by Presidential fiat, so too may the 2nd Amendment.
ReplyDeleteFrom my perch in Canada I've been unable to believe the ruckus over this. Unlike some of the Times' earlier scoops, this one seemed from the get-go, pretty much warmed-over news. I don't even see our side exercised about it. So what's agitating the wingnuts so?
ReplyDeleteTwo guesses: 1) It's an election year, so they need to rally their base. If so, this is pretty small-caliber amunition. 2) They know (because the Times says it conferred with the Administration at some length before publishing it) that there is another shoe getting ready to drop.
My two cents.
You can count me among those who worry that all these calls for violence might start getting answered in the near future.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, answered by whom? The chickenshit wingnuts are the most classic example of "all bark" that I think any of us can imagine. I am no tough guy and I am not the most imposing individual in the world but believe me when I say that I have been in enough real fights and read enough of the puffed up and exaggerated bravado in what these right wing clowns write to know that not many of them has ever had to throw a real punch in their lives. They will huff and puff and that may have some unfortunate and very unpleasant political consequences which should not, in any way, be ignored. But other than ganging up on random individuals on the street that they think of as gay or too much of a hippy, there is not much danger of that crowd trying to impose their physical will on any large scale basis. Of course, I don't mean to downplay gay bashing, which is certainly a horrible and everyday possibility, but when we talk about fearing violent reprisals from these people in the context of some larger movement, lets not forget who we are talking about here.
I think we are overestimating who the commenters on say Free Republic represent. Real people, with actual families and friends and neighbors that they care about are not going to start rioting over some shitstorm started by Michelle fucking racist Malkin, no matter how conservative they are or how they feel about the NYT.
Good grief. Getting one's shorts so far in a knot as to spend several hours photoshopping WWII posters like that, and with such an obvious level of hate behind them, I wonder how one can function on a daily basis with all that rage.
ReplyDeleteThis would be funny if it didn't reflect the thinking of probably 20% of the population that Rove is stoking for political gain. The historians here can correct me but didn't Hitler and the NDSAP come to power with a smaller % of the vote in 1928?
ReplyDeleteGod, I hope they do take this all the way to a trial in front of a jury. Glenn could defend Risen and Lichtbau and use this post as his opening statement.
ReplyDeleteGame over.
Questions for Bart:
ReplyDeleteBart, these are all yes/no questions, so I'm hoping you'll have no difficulty spitting out a "yes" or a "no" to each question...
1. Do you believe the United States is in a State of War?
2. Do you believe it is important to stop abusive surveillance before it begins?
3. Do you want the US Government to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens?
4. Do you want to see journalists in prison?
5. Do you believe there could be a difference between stories that are politically harmful to President Bush, and stories that are harmful to national security?
6. Do you believe publishing information that is in public domain, but not common knowledge, is harmful to national security?
Clear, direct answers without a lot of ranting would be much appreciated.
My Favorite Malkin Poster is the one with the drowning sailor that says
ReplyDelete"Someone Talked!
It was a liberal"
Perfect example of unthinking propaganda designed to demonize an entire group.
I saw the quote from Thomas Jefferson that is in this post posted on another blog and the response from a Bush supporter? "And the leftists wonder why they can't win elections, and why Americans don't trust them with national security. Gawd... see the results of guzzling that Seething Leftist Kook-Ade?"
ReplyDeleteThese people have completely lost it. Now agreeing with Thomas Jefferson is a reason not to be trusted with national security? And the "results of guzzling seething leftist kook-ade"? Bush's minions display their contempt for the founders of our country every day, yet consider themselves to be the most patriotic of Americans. The irony is thick enough to be cut with a knife.
--Kristin
W Lackey Bart said
ReplyDelete"Show me a single instance where any Founder argued that the Press had a duty or a right to publish the details of classified intelligence gathering aimed at an enemy?"
Show me a single instance where the Constitution gives President Jr the right to violate-at will and with no congressional oversight-the same Constitution he's sworn to uphold
And tell me what else this quote is other than blabbing about an operational factor in this supposed "War On Terrorists"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050720-4.html
"And to strengthen the security, we've got to strengthen our partnership with state and local officials. It doesn't do any good if we can figure something out and we don't share it with people at the local level. In this state, the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center -- known as MCAC -- brings together more than 20 federal, state and local agencies. You're doing a good thing in the state and for the local level to coordinate information."
Very good, now W's given the name of a perfect target to logically hit first in the event of another massive terrorist strike
And of course, there is this Administration's outing-for nothing but purely political purposes-of Valerie Plame, an action that has made the US more vulnerable to a terrorist attack than at anytime since September 11
How did outing Plame INCREASE the chances of thwarting a WsMD attack on US soil, or make this country safer in ANY way, shape or form?
How did outing Plame make it easier to recruit the best & brightest as CIA operatives?
How did outing Plame's overseas networks of covert operatives and double agents in other Governments make it easier to recruit the overseas ooperatives and double agents needed to successfuly track and disrupt the transfer of WsMD to rogue regimes, groups & individuals?
How did outing Plame increase the level of trust needed between the White House and the CIA intelligence analysts?
Sorry, there's NO way to answer those questions logically in a way that puts a positive spin on this Administration, not in the least
We know for the starry-eyed true W believers like Bart, W can do no wrong, a Grim Warrior of Righteousness unappreciated by those he's protecting
Thankfully, those numbers of W sheeple are rapidly dwindling, although it is amusing to try and watch the lackeys desperately spin unpleasant realities more to their liking, a futile task if there ever was one
The answer to this line of reasoning should be a simple recitation of the First Amendment with emphasis placed on the approprite section. No arguing, no what ifs - just the First Amendment.
ReplyDeletebrent said:
ReplyDeleteThe chickenshit wingnuts are the most classic example of "all bark" that I think any of us can imagine
Brent, don't expect the milquetoast, pantload bloviators to do any fighting.Well armed
militia types and white supremecists will gladly take up arms against the "undesirables" in this country.
Workingmom oh and chuck:
ReplyDeleteYou both have hit the nail on its head. Katie (or whoever) and Matt are not journalists—they are entertainers, and so is almost everyone else on TV. They seek to entertain, because entertainment brings viewers and advertisers. News does not. it's too hard, too sad, too foreign, too hopeless, too much someone else's problem.
If Bush said, "I am the Antichrist, and my day has come to rule the world. Bow down before me," the evening "news" shows would ask, "According to President Bush, Armageddon may be upon us. Is YOUR family ready?"
We Americans have been so fat and happy for so long (most of us), that we have forgotten that political debate can be life-or-death and that news can bring real change to our everyday lives. I think we need a dose of that kind of danger to our lives, liberties, and individual pursuits of happiness to get our senses back, and we may be getting it in our lifetimes. Domehow, Americans need to be radicalized again.
That quote from Presaident Jr is from July 20, 2005, in Baltimore Maryland-look it up at the White House.gov site, I just don't know how to create linkable text
ReplyDeleteTo Bart -
ReplyDeleteOkay, this is has gone on long enough.
As you've taken the role of Chief Administration Defender here, be so kind as to provide clear proof that the content of these news stories actually cause real, debilitating damage to ongoing intelligence operations: names of operations disrupted, depositions, transcripts from meetings, ANYTHING to show you aren't simply blowing a horn that's all noise and no substance.
Otherwise, please do us all a favor and quit presenting your arguments as proven fact when in fact they are neither proven nor supported by anything other than your own personal opinions.
Argue your own take on issues as much and as passionately as you always have, by all means, but at least acknowledge you're on the same plane as the rest of us.
And here is the logical consequence of the right's arguments wrt to punishing the press for reporting on anything government wishes to remain secret:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_re_as/china_media_controls_2
Back in the day any Iranian who opposed the rule of the Ayatollah Khomeini was said to be "making war on God." Nice to see our domestic wingers adopt the practice.
ReplyDeleteparsec
I like to think that Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein, by supporting the Thought Crime amendment (giving Congress the power to distinguish "good" free speech from "bad" free speech -- are helping lay the groundwork for the single-party police state the righties so eagerly desire.
ReplyDeleteBart,
ReplyDeleteI refer you to the probably partisan, definitely stupid actions of Republican Col. Robert McCormick as an actual example of news reporting compromising national security. His Chicago Tribune's coverage of the Battle of Midway revealed to the public that the US had broken Japanese naval codes, thus we knew where to intercept their carrier battle groups. A partisan would say McCormick did this because he hated Roosevelt and didn't care about the national security repercussions. FDR's Justice and War Department never followed through on Espionage Act charges. Are you suggesting the NYT/LAT/WSJ reporting on financial tracking absent oversight, most of which has been in the public domain for several years is more harmful?
2 questions to add for Bart:
ReplyDeleteIn the USA, what right does a President have to take a law, which, as you know, is passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by a President, which confers executive branch acceptance, and break said law, without petitioning the courts or Congress to, respectively, strike down the particular law or repeal it?
The executive branch can't break a particular law simply because it says it has the authority, can it? I'd like to think of this as a rhetorical question, but apparently it's not.
Bart:
ReplyDeleteAs for the act of Congress, check the AUMF.
This is specious. If it was a declaration of war, they should have called it one, and it doesn't relate to terrorism except in the minds of people like you. US Military forces are always in danger somewhere in the world, since they are deployed in so many places. Does that mean the US is always at "war"? I believe the Korean war never officially ended, will you fall back on that?
Defund the program. If there is any criminal act involved, impeach the President.
Meretricious now too.
How can they defund if they can't tell anyone about it? If a member ot the intel committee wrote a bill saying "no funds shall be used to track terrorist financial trasactions except under FISA" or some such, that would reveal the existence of the program! and how would they get the rest of congress to vote for such a bill if they didn't understand the need for it, because no one who knows about it can explain it? No member of congress in good conscience can vote for a law they don't understand the reason for or the consequence of - what next, black box legislation? Congress votes for the mystery box, inside is a law, but its contents are classified?
Did you catch my Heller-Catch-22 reference? Go read the book before you answer.
I reiterate: Congress had no oversight on the program because they had no ability to stop it
(Besides: Don't you adhere to the notion that this power is the President's Under Article II anyway? So any act by congress attempting to stop this program is already in your view unconstitutional and would be ignored by the President.)
(me) Congress has (very limited) briefings on the subject, not oversight.
(Bart) How do you know the extent of the briefings given to Congress?
I meant limited in terms of how many members of congress got briefed. As I point out above, none but the intel committees knew about this, and the Intel committees legally can't tell any other members of congress. It really doesn't matter how thorough the briefings given to the Intel committees were, they're sworn to secrecy.
If this is like the NSA Program briefings, the leaders of both parties were briefed. None of the Dems on the intel committees are claiming they were shut out while their GOP counterparts were briefed.
The "If this is like the NSA program" comment shows how much groundless faith you give the administration. You clearly haven't done your homework here and are just dead wrong. This was linked to in this very thread. From the Chicago Tribune:
The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Monday that she and many of her colleagues on the committee were briefed on the program by Treasury Department officials only after the administration learned that it would be exposed in the media.
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said she did not learn about the transaction-monitoring program until last month, even though it has been in operation since shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
A spokesman for the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), said the lawmaker was briefed on the program shortly after he became chairman in 2004
Emphasis added.
"Personally I find the arguement that by reporting this legal activity to be "aiding the terrorits" to be absolute bunk. That's like saying if you report there are silent alarms in banks you are assisting bank robbers. As a matter of fact the opposite is true, by revealing it you are detering bank robbers, make them think twice in essence. Like the old saying "you use a lock to keep honest people honest"."
ReplyDeleteGreat point. Do the people who have "This home protected by Brinks" stickers on their front door think they are helping potential robbers?
I hope Jao is correct that the administration will not actually prosecute the NYT because the case is so weak and they’ve avoided the courts at all costs in other controversies as well.
ReplyDeleteBut something happened this weekend, and that something was that the hysterics and irrational rhetoric ceased to come just from the blogs and talk radio, but was joined by both the President, the Vice President, and elected Republicans.
Since they have joined the mob, and the rhetoric is so out of hand and the fires of hatred stoked to such a degree, I think this will take on a life of its own, and the administration will no longer be able to control the rowdy rabble they created and will not be able to back down at some point.
Think about this: if it does go to the courts, and the decision does go against them, it will simply give them another target for demonization – the courts – already a favorite target of the radical religious right.
The “out of control judiciary” along with the media will be branded as traitors. The move to prosecute can’t backfire with the base, but it may with the American people, I’m not sure how that would play out politically. But I agree with those that who say that this was the weekend where the line was crossed.
We now have to ask: what’s on the other side of that line?
The wingnuts can split hairs all day as to who said what about which program and who read about it in which cave in Pakistan/Afghanistan, but the fact is that the day after the first journalist from any of these three papers is killed by a conservative fanatic, America's reputation as the the most stable political and financial haven in the world will no longer be credible, and the money will start flowing elsewhere. U.S. stocks will then start to head south, and then the whole ball of wax will begin unraveling. A variation of that theme has happened to every empire in history, and King George will be long remembered for his role in the disintegration of the American experiment in democracy.
ReplyDeleteSome day I will piss on his grave, and that of Cheney's.
Shooter:
ReplyDeleteLet me throw out a hypothetical...
* Diagrams for the manufacture of various types of bombs are available, not all are secret.
* It is also concievable it is in the public interest to know whether others are interested in materials or tools used for bombs.
* Should the Times put bomb diagrams on the front page? Certainly it's covered by free speech as defined here.
* It certainly would be in the Bush interest not to have more bombs made. Does that make it irrelevant to Americans?
Your hypothetical doesn't apply because there is no valid social value or interest in broadcasting bombmaking instructions.
However, knowing what your government is up to, in terms of what information it gathers about you and what duly passed legislation it is breaking is of considerable social value.
There is a world of difference between a journalist reporting "Police are planning a raid on some terrorists in Miami" which allows the terrorists to get away - and reporting on dubious government activity that has some terrorist fighting value, but also is illegal and highly intrusive and open to abuse.
I think there may be a point at which the media should not broadcast information of value to enemies of society but the line is very far from this. It is at the level of imminent threat or immediate use. The "harm" done by this is nebulous at best - some clever terrorists may learn to use different means of moving money and may at some future point strike. But the government is RIGHT NOW spying on its citizens without court authorization in a wide-reaching unimaginable scale.
The danger to society from government intrusion far outweighs the potential threat of secretive terrorist financing.
ReplyDelete"Why We Ran the Bank Story"
LA Times editorial, today.
dan: I appreciate your tenacity in arguing with shooter. The key issue here, though, is that he doesn't believe what he says. He's projecting shadows on a wall and expecting the gullible and naive to take those shadows for terrorists.
ReplyDeleteIn this milieu of fear and disgust, the right-wing is freely calling up the most dangerous and lethal emotions and directing them at destroying any shred of democracy the country can boast of.
Is this the same New York Times that printed every lie told to Judith Miller when it suited the administration's purposes to justify an illegal war?
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that Bush & Company thought of the NYT as a fine, upstanding publication back then...
While we're talking about free speech, I'd just like to note that threatening speech and speech that incites violence is not protected by the First Amendment, nor is libel or slander.
ReplyDeleteThe National Review, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Power Line, etc. are not free to say just anything. I find it interesting that they want to place unconstitutional limits on the freedom of the rest of the press, but don't feel the need to limit their own speech to what is protected. They're not even hiding their hypocrisy anymore.
So, when is the NYT going to start bringing slander and libel suits? Aren't untrue accusations of "espionage" actionable, if they damage the reputation of the NYT and its employees?
Not good to print:
ReplyDelete"President Bush has ok'd an attack on Country X to begin next Monday at 2:30pm." (Let's assume, of course, we were attacked *first* by Country X and we were responding).
Fine to print:
"Sources inside the WH have told
us about a secret surveillance program to spy on American citizens without any apparent oversight. Here are the details..."
The difference is protecting people (in the fomer, soldiers) and protecing the WH.
Free, unfettered press.
Open government.
Will of the people.
Aren't they a few of the vital linchpins of a democracy?
This blog admits that the information was not common knowledge and was generally restricted to terrorist finance experts such as the blogger.
ReplyDeleteNot exactly classified, is it?
This reminds me of the argument made by Fitzgerald that Plame's employment by the CIA was only known to the intelligence community, not the general public, and was thus still classified for the purposes of criminal prosecution.
Well, since there's no contemporarily dated evidence that her status was known and the CIA says otherwise, this sounds to me exactly like a place a weak mind like yours would hide when you (as usual) have no argument and no evidence.
One of the primary purposes of keeping the means, methods, scope and limits of our intelligence gathering programs classified is to keep the enemy guessing as to what intelligence gathering we are and are not performing so the enemy simply does not change his plans to avoid our surveillance.
Right, because we just might decide to take them by surprise by covering our eyes and saying "Marco ... Marco ..." Christ on a crutch, this is too obvious, even for you.
Indeed, the NYT itself makes the best argument that the information you have listed above was not public knowledge to al Qeada:
No, it doesn't. That assertion is nowhere in the quote you provide. Lemmee guess, you can hear it when you read it in one of Rush's childish make-fun-of-you voices?
It would be easy to draft a lengthy criminal indictment for violation of the Espionage Act simply by quoting the NYT at length.
And yet the administration is not doing so. They know they can't. As with the Mary MacCarthy non-incident, the administration is just using idiots like you to make a lot of noise to intimidate people. Doesn't work anymore, so go stamp your little foot or something.
Have fun with this one. It was dead before you go here.
.
This is a perfect time to start a boycott campaign.
ReplyDeleteLet's start with the National Review.
Get the most recent copy, locate the advertisers list. Let's call each advertiser up and inform them we are boycotting their products until withdraw support for the Review and its facist persecution of the press.
Same for any network advertisers who sponsor bobble head pundits claim the same thing.
There needs to be a boycott manager ready at all times to start the notifications to get this moving. It should be a reflex reaction of the blogsphere alert readers of product boycotts and phone campaigns to inform advertisers that their money has now made them an economic target.
Do this conssitently and these type of thuggish tactics will stop.
BTW taking these statement of imprisonment at face value is playing into the hand of the right. They should be laughed off, the speakers ridiculed, and there must be credibility hits to the advocates of such a campaign. They are not journalists but cultists and it is dangerous to ever foget this.
Hume's Ghost:
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting up that link. Michelle Cottle had two really great pieces in the last few days, and for some reason, I only remembered to link to one of them.
When TNR is good, they're really good. When they're not, well......
cfaller96 said...
ReplyDeleteQuestions for Bart:
Bart, these are all yes/no questions, so I'm hoping you'll have no difficulty spitting out a "yes" or a "no" to each question...
If theses questions present a clear dichotomy, I will answer "yes" or "no." If not, then I will give you a short answer.
Clear, direct answers without a lot of ranting would be much appreciated.
I leave the 10 page rants to Glenn. I simply do not have the time.
1. Do you believe the United States is in a State of War?
Yes. This is a matter of fact, not belief.
2. Do you believe it is important to stop abusive surveillance before it begins?
No. It is simply impossible to do so.
3. Do you want the US Government to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens?
No, if it violates the 4th Amendment.
4. Do you want to see journalists in prison?
Yes, if they commit a crime which merits prison.
5. Do you believe there could be a difference between stories that are politically harmful to President Bush, and stories that are harmful to national security?
Yes. As an aside, I believe these disclosures by the NYT have only helped Mr. Bush politically.
6. Do you believe publishing information that is in public domain, but not common knowledge, is harmful to national security?
Yes.
The escalating rhetoric is running toward a lynch mob, Salem witch trial mentality ... the religious type of outrage is going right over the top with hysteria the call of the day.
ReplyDeleteI think we are missing the larger point of this "controversy".....I dont for a second believe that Bush et al give a rats ass whether the NYT leaked this information...
ReplyDelete(I mean if they did they would also implicate the WSJ and the conservative leaning LA Times)
What they (Rove) do care about is propping this President up with some sort of opponent to give him the appearance of being "tough" (Bush has always performed at his best when he is contrasted with something or someone (see election 2004))
Repubs are desparately trying to pull up GWB numbers (primarily within their base)....gay marriage didnt work, immigration didnt work, Zarquawi didnt work, the Iraq photo op didnt work, and stories of amnesty for terrorists certainly wont help them with their base either
....so for Rove and company its back to attacking the old standby the "liberal media"....
This NYT treason non-story is also functioning as a distraction from all the bad news in Iraq and taking focus off of the big Repub failures within their own base in regards to two big issues that were supposed to carry them thru the 2006 election: immigration and gay marriage amendment......
Rove figures correctly, that you can always rally the Repub base with a little "liberal" media bashing and thats what he is attempting to do...
All this brew-ha is nothing more than a diversion and a chance to recapture voters.....Rove has always been about electioneering never about policy...
-l4
Bartbarian answers a question:
ReplyDelete"6. Do you believe publishing information that is in public domain, but not common knowledge, is harmful to national security?
Yes."
And thus this lawyer who supports this administration's destruction of our Constitutional republic confirms his contempt for the citizens for whom, of whom, and supposedly by whom this nation is governed.
KingCranky II said...
ReplyDeleteBart: "Show me a single instance where any Founder argued that the Press had a duty or a right to publish the details of classified intelligence gathering aimed at an enemy?"
Show me a single instance where the Constitution gives President Jr the right to violate-at will and with no congressional oversight-the same Constitution he's sworn to uphold
I will take that non response as an admission that you cannot offer any instance of a Founder arguing that the Press had a duty or a right to publish the details of classified intelligence gathering aimed at an enemy.
And tell me what else this quote is other than blabbing about an operational factor in this supposed "War On Terrorists"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050720-4.html
"And to strengthen the security, we've got to strengthen our partnership with state and local officials. It doesn't do any good if we can figure something out and we don't share it with people at the local level. In this state, the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center -- known as MCAC -- brings together more than 20 federal, state and local agencies. You're doing a good thing in the state and for the local level to coordinate information."
This tells people that our government agencies are sharing information. Are you claiming that this is classified?
And of course, there is this Administration's outing-for nothing but purely political purposes-of Valerie Plame, an action that has made the US more vulnerable to a terrorist attack than at anytime since September 11
Thank you, Glenn. Forget Daily Kos or any of the actively pro-Dem, partisan blogs. Your blog consistently stands for PRINCIPLES, rather than parties. Kudos on a great post.
ReplyDeleteGrim said...
ReplyDeleteBart, I refer you to the probably partisan, definitely stupid actions of Republican Col. Robert McCormick as an actual example of news reporting compromising national security. His Chicago Tribune's coverage of the Battle of Midway revealed to the public that the US had broken Japanese naval codes, thus we knew where to intercept their carrier battle groups.
When Glenn incorrectly claimed some weeks ago that the NYT disclosure of the NSA Program was part of some grand press tradition of disclosing classified intelligence gathering programs, I pointed out that this incident was the only pre-Vietnam press disclosure of this type which I could find.
A partisan would say McCormick did this because he hated Roosevelt and didn't care about the national security repercussions.
Very likely. That was not an excuse then and is not one now for the NYT & Co.
FDR's Justice and War Department never followed through on Espionage Act charges.
They did not want to focus Japanese attention to the article.
Are you suggesting the NYT/LAT/WSJ reporting on financial tracking absent oversight, most of which has been in the public domain for several years is more harmful?
As I demonstrated above with Glenn's assistance, what the NYT published was not public knowledge.
The NYT's disclosure of the NSA and Swift programs and the USA Today's disclosure of the call records programs are easily as damaging as the disclosure that were were listening in on the Japanese.
Aaron G. Stock said...
ReplyDeleteIn the USA, what right does a President have to take a law, which, as you know, is passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by a President, which confers executive branch acceptance, and break said law, without petitioning the courts or Congress to, respectively, strike down the particular law or repeal it? The executive branch can't break a particular law simply because it says it has the authority, can it? I'd like to think of this as a rhetorical question, but apparently it's not.
The Clinton DOJ wrote a very good brief on how the President has the duty and power to ignore illegal statutes, even if he signed it himself.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm
The NYT's disclosure of the NSA and Swift programs and the USA Today's disclosure of the call records programs are easily as damaging as the disclosure that were were listening in on the Japanese.
ReplyDeleteBullshit.
in my view, ggr is barking up the wrong tree to take these charges against the nytimes and other media at face value.
ReplyDeletemost of the people writing this stuff are intellectually sophisticated enough to know they don't really want the times punished in the ways they are suggesting.
i also doubt if most of these right-wing operatives are criticizing the times banking-records story because they want the bush administration to go without any criticism at all.
the way i look at things, when the right wing political machine goes after a person or institution it is because that person or institution has offered a threat to their power.
for individuals the right wing responds with dismissing or shaming - counterattacks claiming the critic is biased, public discloser of private matters, attacks on one's professional reputation,or livelihood, etc.
for institutions, the attack is usually on the basis of "harming the nation" or "unfairness/bias" (think of the Corp for public broadcasting or npr).
while there's no harm in following the implications of their words and assuming they seriously intend to follow through with their threats,
for me it is more effective to consider attacks such as this one on the times as part of a widely employed strategy of intimidating and discrediting a critic.
i am guessing that this rove-coordinated propaganda is a sign of worry -
worry that if the financial records spying story is not opposed strongly, as the bush admin is now doing, it might spread.
other reporters from other newspapers or magazines might start digging deeply
into this and reveal more of the bush admin's misconduct.
but with this orchestrated attack on the times, not only the times itself but other newspaper may pipe down and not pursue the story further.
so
what would a good reporter and editor do?
look at this story real hard and real deep.
i can almost guarantee there is a lot more to be disclosed that is damaging to the bush admin and to the republican election prospects in november.
i infer this from the scope of the current criticism and from the especially heated rhetoric the right-wing spokesmen are deploying.
the attack on the times has the additional political benefit of focusing the discourse on "traitor" (the media) and away from "spy" (the bush administration).
after all, aren't we now spending our time here talking about their threats(words) and the implications of those threats for action, when in fact, we should be focusing on right-wing tactics and strategy for retaining power in November?
this attack also has the advantage for the republicans of creating a "foe" who rank-and-file right-wingers can earnestly hate, as is their wont, and about whom they can commiserate with each other thru such commercial rabble rousers as limbaugh or boortz. this helps keep the core supporters focused outside the party.
as an aside, i could be more sympathetic to the times if it were not for the fact that i have such contempt for this intellectually dishonest, cowardly, status-loving, access-seeking institution.
for decades, the times has repeatedly decided what the american public should NOT know and, in its wisdom, has killed or weakened important political news. by routinely withholding news from us, it is effectively censoring some of the info that citizens need to make public decisions ,e.g., withholding the nsa phone spying until after the november, 2004 elections.
in any event, i don't believe that ggr's argument is wrong, i just think we need to focus on why the mighty Wurlitzer of the right-wing has started playing a certain tune at a certain time.
my interest is: why they are saying what they are saying? not what is the implications of the content (what) of their speech.
if we could document and publicly describe the rove-lead propaganda efforts over the last six years, we could more easily see that
for right-wing politicians, there are no ethical or moral boundaries to politics. they can use, they have used, and they will use any ruse, any dishonesty, any means of rigging elections, any change in long-standing government tradition or institutions (constitutional amendment anyone?).
basically, i am offering an explanation of the attack on the times involving political expediency and political tactics,
i consider it of great importance that we create a wide-angle picture of the tactics and tricks this gang of political marauders uses, and then put that picture before the nation to evaluate.
Bartbarian: "Show me a single instance where any Founder argued that the Press had a duty or a right to publish the details of classified intelligence gathering aimed at an enemy?"
ReplyDeleteAmendment I
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....
I don't see any exceptions stipulated there. That's as plainly stated as can be, and as broad.
I wish some of the rabid right wingers calling for the killing of NYT reporters would read your excellent and well researched piece.
ReplyDeleteThanks Glenn, great work as always.
ReplyDeleterobertmc said:
ReplyDeleteAren't they a few of the vital linchpins of a democracy?
Haven't you heard the new Republican talking point that's making the rounds? They've decided that we don't, and never did, have a "Democracy." No, it's a "Republic" that the founding fathers created. They think that this gets them out of having to follow any of the things the founding fathers ever said (because, they obviously didn't mean all those things they said about freedom of the press if they were only creating a Republic, right?). Convenient, no?
It is quite contrary to their assertion that they're bringing Democracy to Iraq, since, according to them, we don't even have Democracy here. But, when has contradiction and hypocrisy ever stopped them before?
--Kristin
I believe this date back to the 50's
ReplyDeleteSection 798. Disclosure of classified information
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government
Dan said...
ReplyDeleteBart: As for the act of Congress, check the AUMF.
This is specious. If it was a declaration of war, they should have called it one...
The Constitution only gives Congress one power over warmaking, that is the power to declare war. A declaration of war is simply the authority to use military force against a foreign power. Exactly what is an AUMF then if not a declaration of war?
and it doesn't relate to terrorism except in the minds of people like you.
The AUMF expressly names al Qaeda and all aligned groups. Try reading it before commenting on it.
(me) Congress has (very limited) briefings on the subject, not oversight.
(Bart) How do you know the extent of the briefings given to Congress?
I meant limited in terms of how many members of congress got briefed. As I point out above, none but the intel committees knew about this, and the Intel committees legally can't tell any other members of congress.
All it takes is one member of Congress to blow the whistle about illegal activity.
Congress itself set up the intelligence committees to perform oversight to limit the chances of a leak coming out of Congress.
It really doesn't matter how thorough the briefings given to the Intel committees were, they're sworn to secrecy.
Under the Constitution, you cannot prosecute a member of Congress for what he or she does while in session. Congress is free to disclose criminal activity on open session of Congress without any reprisal.
Bart: If this is like the NSA Program briefings, the leaders of both parties were briefed. None of the Dems on the intel committees are claiming they were shut out while their GOP counterparts were briefed.
The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Monday that she and many of her colleagues on the committee were briefed on the program by Treasury Department officials only after the administration learned that it would be exposed in the media.
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said she did not learn about the transaction-monitoring program until last month, even though it has been in operation since shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
A spokesman for the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), said the lawmaker was briefed on the program shortly after he became chairman in 2004
If this is true and Harmon simply has not forgotten, then Harmon has a legitimate bitch.
However, I am having a hard time believing this claim given that the 9/11 commission was fully briefed and the intel committees had full access to the classified portions of the 9/11 report.
From Bart at 4:12pm:
ReplyDelete"The Clinton DOJ wrote a very good brief on how the President has the duty and power to ignore illegal statutes, even if he signed it himself."
Oh, for the love of god, not *this* again!
Bart, you have yet to present any case law supporting such a contention, never mind admit it hasn't actually been tested or even argued in a Court at any level. Repitition a thing does not make it so.
Additionally, you have yet actually show how the content of these articles has undermined national security in any substantial way. So with exactly what authority do you speak here, besides being only slightly more articulate than some of the other contrarians?
How soon they forget...
ReplyDeleteHere is the NYT just days after 9/11 calling for strict new banking controls with no concerns at all for oversight:
September 24, 2001
Finances of Terror
Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.
The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.
Osama bin Laden originally rose to prominence because his inherited fortune allowed him to bankroll Arab volunteers fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Since then, he has acquired funds from a panoply of Islamic charities and illegal and legal businesses, including export-import and commodity trading firms, and is estimated to have as much as $300 million at his disposal.
Some of these businesses move funds through major commercial banks that lack the procedures to monitor such transactions properly. Locally, terrorists can utilize tiny unregulated storefront financial centers, including what are known as hawala banks, which people in South Asian immigrant communities in the United States and other Western countries use to transfer money abroad. Though some smaller financial transactions are likely to slip through undetected even after new rules are in place, much of the financing needed for major attacks could dry up.
Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with financial institutions based in these nations. The Bush administration initially opposed such measures. But after the events of Sept. 11, it appears ready to embrace them.
The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with "shell banks" that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws. Prosecutors, meanwhile, should be able to freeze more easily the assets of suspected terrorists. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold hearings this week on a bill providing for such measures. It should be approved and signed into law by President Bush.
New regulations requiring money service businesses like the hawala banks to register and imposing criminal penalties on those that do not are scheduled to come into force late next year. The effective date should be moved up to this fall, and rules should be strictly enforced the moment they take effect. If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/24/
opinion/24MON2.html?ei=5070&en=
36a8f99782d8f4ff&ex=1151553600
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteBart: "The Clinton DOJ wrote a very good brief on how the President has the duty and power to ignore illegal statutes, even if he signed it himself."
Oh, for the love of god, not *this* again!
Bart, you have yet to present any case law supporting such a contention, never mind admit it hasn't actually been tested or even argued in a Court at any level. Repitition a thing does not make it so.
Read the brief. It offers several cases, many of them by the Supreme Court, directly on point.
Bart Said:
ReplyDelete"I am afraid Bush is too chickensh*t to actually prosecute the media outlets who conspired to disclose this information to the enemy."
Remember, talk about the adminitration breaking the law, trashing our constitution, the missing billions of dollars, lying us into the Iraq debacle are all just the rantings of wild conspiracy theorists.
The real story here is how the liberal media has beens conspiring against our thoughtful and decisive leader, the honorable George W. Bush.
The Clinton DOJ wrote a very good brief on how the President has the duty and power to ignore illegal statutes, even if he signed it himself.
ReplyDeleteThat is another very good reason to view Clinton with contempt...as with his betrayal of his supposedly "progressive" credentials when he decimated the welfare system, as with his weakening of habeas corpus, as with his ramping up of the use of roving wiretaps, Clinton was the best friend to the conservative cause as the Republicans could have wished for. That the Clinton administration wrote a brief justifying the President's disregarding laws HE views as illegal does not validate such acts, but merely further tarnishes the luster that Clinton supporters still wish to see in him.
All this screaming by the bushies is just a
ReplyDeletecover for some really nasty stuff they have done.
Ironic that Sen. Pat Roberts said, "You have no civil liberties if you're dead."
ReplyDeleteThere was another Patrick who said, "Give me liberty or give me death."
Bart said:
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution only gives Congress one power over warmaking, that is the power to declare war. A declaration of war is simply the authority to use military force against a foreign power. Exactly what is an AUMF then if not a declaration of war?
So, why didn't Bush request a Declaration of War? Under your theory, there would never be a need or reason for an AUMF. Why the playing with the language if it was exactly the same as a "Declaration of War"?
--Kristin
Great Humor: 'The real story here is how the liberal media has beens conspiring against our thoughtful and decisive leader, the honorable George W. Bush.'
ReplyDeleteThank you for the laughs!!
Bartbarian asks a question: "Exactly what is an AUMF then if not a declaration of war?"
ReplyDeleteIt was a craven and shameful act by a Congressful of Pontius Pilates willing to cede to the President THEIR Constitutional authority (and grave responsibility)to declare war...they didn't have the stomach to stand up and declare war against Iraq themselves, to wait until a time came when compelling evidence warranted their making such a declaration. It essentially said, "Here George, we're handing you our ball...run with it when and as you choose."
Disgraceful.
Why settle for creeping fascism when you can get there by leaps and bounds?
ReplyDeleteThat's always been the Bush MO.
The Constitution only gives Congress one power over warmaking, that is the power to declare war
ReplyDeleteTo declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart said: The Constitution only gives Congress one power over warmaking, that is the power to declare war. A declaration of war is simply the authority to use military force against a foreign power. Exactly what is an AUMF then if not a declaration of war?
So, why didn't Bush request a Declaration of War?
Because Presidents, in direct contravention of the Constitution, have all claimed that they have the inherent power to use military force without a declaration of war.
PhD9 said...
ReplyDeleteBart: The Constitution only gives Congress one power over warmaking, that is the power to declare war
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;
I referred to the power of "war making" or the power to make war. I said nothing about Congress' various powers concerning the military, which are in effect during peace as well as war. Letters of marque do not require a war.
Bart said:
ReplyDeleteBecause Presidents, in direct contravention of the Constitution, have all claimed that they have the inherent power to use military force without a declaration of war.
So, why does the AUMF carry the same weight as a Declaration of War again? Your argument appears to be circular. Enlighten me.
--Kristin
From Bart at 4:35pm:
ReplyDelete"Read the brief. It offers several cases, many of them by the Supreme Court, directly on point."
I have. I see the terms "implicitly endorsed" and the like, but nothing indicating this was a settled doctrine.
Additionally the fourth paragraph notes, without attributing to a specific cases or ruling, how:
"the general proposition that in some situations the President may decline to enforce unconstitutional statutes is unassailable, it does not offer sufficient guidance as to the appropriate course in specific circumstances."
This suggests, to me at least, that (a) the entire notion is just a 'propostion' and not an iron-clad, proven doctrine, and (b) it should be invoked only where case law or current understanding of circumstances strongly suggests it is a constitutional encroachment.
I also direct Bart's attention to propostions 3 through 5, which clearly state the SCOTUS should review whatever constitutional disputes arise from statutes.
Additionally, and I can't believe I'm having to state this, A BRIEF ISN'T A LEGAL RULING! This, like Bart's continued insistence on this blanket doctrine, is simply an untested legal opinion with NO real force behind it.
I further note you haven't addressed my other question, not that I seriously expected you to.
Wow -- spot on, Glenn. There's another aspect of this media hate wave that bears mentioning. The NYT was not alone in publishing a story on the financial transaction monitoring. That same day, I believe the LA Times and WSJ also led with stories on this surveillance program. But the right-wing ire has focused almost exclusively on the NYT. To me, this is open and shut proof that the Administration's and lackey's attacks are not motivated by concerns for national security, but instead take aim at a political adversary. The LAT and WSJ, possessed of conservative editorial staffs, are immune for this round of purge the press.
ReplyDeleteKudos again, Glenn.
So shall we put you down for misplaced concern over the government's role and questioning why the Times felt the need to publicize this?
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to question why the Times felt the need to publish it. To suggest that they should be arrested for having done so however is just another step in our steady descent.....
if'n you look @ who these people are, just look graduates of http://www.isi.org/ and working for members of the cnp and salem
ReplyDeleteThis is what a cross examination at a criminal trial of the LAT or NYT is likely to sound like. Unlike the lawyered written editorial op-ed pieces, this exchange reveals what the editors were really thinking.
ReplyDeleteDoyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times
by Hugh Hewitt
June 26, 2006 04:32 PM PST
Doyle McManus is the Washington, D.C. bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times.
To his credit, he came on the program for about 15 minutes of Q & A. The transcript is here.
McManus concedes that it is possible that the SWIFT story damaged our counterterrorism efforts and assisted terrorists in eluding capture:
HH: Is it possible, in your view, Doyle McManus, that the story will in fact help terrorists elude capture?
DM: I did...I neither believed it nor disbelieved it. I would believe I took that seriously. It's impossible for me to evaluate independently to what degree...whether the potential assistance to terrorists...I think they actually didn't argue that it would help terrorists. They argued that it would disadvantage, or make more difficult, counter-terrorist programs. But that's probably a distinction without a difference. What...would that be momentous? Would it be marginal? I don't know.
HH: Is it possible, in your view, Doyle McManus, that the story will in fact help terrorists elude capture?
DM: It is conceivable, yeah, although it might be worth noting that in our reporting, officials told us that this would, this disclosure would probably not affect al Qaeda, which figured out long ago that the normal banking system was not how it ought to move its money, and so turned to other unofficial and informal channels.
HH: The terrorist Hambali came up. He was captured in August of '03, mastermind/financier of the Bali bombing. Are you familiar with Hambali?
DM: I am.
HH: And did they alert you to the fact that they believe that Hambali was captured as a result of this SWIFT program?
DM: They did not. The first I knew of that was when I read it in the New York Times.
HH: Is it possible now that whoever was familiar with what Hambali did, those terrorists in Southeast Asia, could just simply reverse engineer his financing, and figure out what they shouldn't do now?
DM: Well, I suppose it's possible, except in effect, what we're talking about here is the simple question of whether international banking transmissions are monitored....
He also conceded --to his great credit, and without equivocation-- that the press enjoys no exemption from the national security laws, as well as the possibility that he or others from the paper would answer questions about the paper's sources before a grand jury:
HH: Sure. Do you agree, Doyle McManus, that the press has no exemption from the national security statutes?
DM: I do agree with that.
HH: And if called before a grand jury, would you reveal the sources in the government that leaked you this information?
DM: That would be a judgment that we would have to make at that time.
HH: So it's possible that you would?
DM: That would depend on the nature of the pledges we made to those sources.
HH: So it's possible that that, in fact, would reveal who it is that's leaking this?
DM: It's hypothetically possible, yeah.
The Los Angeles Times didn't do much agonizing once it was informed that the New York Times was going with the story:
HH: Now what I'm wondering, though, is, how did you balance? What probability did you assign to the terrorist tack that doesn't get stopped because of this story?
DM: Well, I can't give you a mathematical formula on that. And as a matter of fact, when we made our decision to publish our story, the New York Times had already published its. So as a matter of fact, we had not had the set of discussions that we had scheduled on precisely how to balance that. So in a sense, I can't tell you how we balanced it, because we ended up not coming to a final decision. Now I don't mean to be disingenuous. We were certainly leaning in the direction of publishing, but we hadn't finally decided to.
Finally, this exchange went to the abilities of journalists to make these judgments:
HH: Time for just a couple more questions. I hope you'll come back, Mr. McManus. Are you and the folks at the Los Angeles Times qualified to evaluate the terrorist networks, their sophistication in how they respond to information, from classified information?
DM: Well, we are journalists, we're qualified to go ask the smartest people we can find those questions, and that's about the best we can do.
HH: Did anyone who would go on the record tell you this would have no significant damage to the counter-terrorism effort?
DM: I don't believe anyone made that unqualified statement, no.
HH: Given that you couldn't find anyone to tell you that it wouldn't be damaging, wouldn't the necessary conclusion be that it would be?
DM: That's a reasonable inference. But we did...there were people who told us that they believed that the damage, if any, would be minimal.
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/
06/25-week/index.php#a002580
Will somebody PLEASE read the letter below to the president:
ReplyDeleteThe president's people like the term, "serving at the pleasure of the president". They also like, "our commander-in-chief".
The president is the commander-in-chief of the military forces. Not of you, me and the next un-military person.
The president "SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PEOPLE"! (you, me and every other un-military person in this country).
The press was given freedom to protect the "PEOPLE'S INTEREST".
When ever there is even a hint of impropriety in the government's treatment of the people, the editorial pages of all newspapers need to light up like the beacon they were intended to be.
Doesn't the argument that this hinders our ability to catch terrorists really undermine the adminstration's stance on the Patriot Act?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, we got a lot of details about exactly what it would and would not allow, and how it would and would not be used. Details about wire-tapping, financial records, etc. So once passed, by this logic, it became essentially useless, and made it harder for us to catch terrorists.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSo, why does the AUMF carry the same weight as a Declaration of War again? Your argument appears to be circular. Enlighten me.
You misunderstand me. I am saying the AUMF is a declaration of war.
Congress only has the power to declare war, nothing more or less.
In practical effect, there is no difference between an AUMF and a declaration of war except for the name attached to the authorization to use military force.
Great post, very thorough, as usual. There are times I have to remind myself I'm still in America. How can there be such ignorance of, and hostility toward, core American principles such as freedom of the press? How can so many prominent public figures and media outlets, seemingly with no sense of our nation's history, try to legitimize such a totalitarian notion? Glen Reynolds' post on this subject is particularly obtuse or disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteshooter242:
ReplyDelete"If only liberals showed the fear and disgust of Islamo-fascists, like they do Bush. Tsk."
Again, the liberal thing. shooter, why oh why does this mean anything to you?
Note that shooter refers to disgust. The work of Martha Nussbaum has been mentioned here before. I guess shooter is also admitting that he is scared.
And finally, what the hell is shooter's overall point? Nothing. Nada. He is implicitly saying that there are two choices, accept Bush's inept handling of this ridiculous GWOT or accept some sort of Islamo-fascist caliphate. Gee, why don't we try to fight these Islamo-fascists within the law (at the very least) and with foreign policies that actually work. Honestly, it's not hard to understand the position of most of the people who visit this blog.
KingCranky II -
ReplyDeleteCreate linkable text by enclosing the url like so:
linkable text here
HWSNBN is reading-impaired once again:
ReplyDeleteYou spend a great deal of time showing that it was public knowledge that the United States had programs to track terrorist financial transactions. Yet, none of your examples show that the means, methods, scope or limits of those programs were public.
Glenn gave his sources, and told what had been revealed. The Times (and other papers') story is publicly available. All HWSNBN has to do is show something in the Times story that wasn't already available (in fact, Glenn challenged any respondent to do exactly that). HWSNBN simply spouts his nonsense once again and ignores his "burden of production". Nothing new; standard HWSNBN operating procedure.
Cheers,
Congress is ratcheting up the pressure on the Administration to take legal action in this case:
ReplyDeleteJune 27, 2006
The Honorable John D. Negroponte Director of National Intelligence Washington, D.C. 20511
Dear Mr. Director:
Unauthorized disclosures of classified information continue to threaten our national security exposing our sensitive intelligence sources and methods to our enemies. Numerous, recent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive intelligence programs have directly threatened important efforts in the war against terrorism. Whether the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program or the Department of Treasury's effort to track terrorist financing, we have been unable to persuade the media to act responsibly and protect the means by which we protect this nation.
To gain a better understanding of the damage caused by unauthorized disclosures of this type, I ask that you perform an assessment of the damage caused by the unauthorized disclosure of some of our most sensitive intelligence programs. While your assessment may range beyond the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program and Treasury's Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, I am particularly interested in the damage attributable to these two unauthorized disclosures.
Sincerely,
Pat Roberts
Chairman
If the Administration is compelled to draft a damage assessment, then they will be compelled to explain why they are not taking any action against the parties who caused the damage.
kingcranky II:
ReplyDeleteSorry, that worked in preview but not when posted.
3,525 words of paranoia.
ReplyDeleteParody is impossible.
ReplyDelete.
This is what a cross examination at a criminal trial of the LAT or NYT is likely to sound like.
ReplyDeleteBy Hugh Hewitt? Doomed!
.
In practical effect, there is no difference between an AUMF and a declaration of war except for the name attached to the authorization to use military force.
ReplyDeleteThat was my whole question - WHY does it need a different name?
Forget it. I give up.
I am saying the AUMF is a declaration of war.
ReplyDeleteFunny. Even President Bush disagrees with you there.
.
If only liberals showed the fear and disgust of Islamo-fascists, like they do Bush
ReplyDeleteBoth of them are enemies of our freedoms, and Bush has gotten more Americans killed than al Qaeda.
All clear now?
.
In 1735, the provincial governor of New York attempted to shut down a newspaper that was critical of him. In convincing the jury to find the publisher "Not Guilty," the defense attorney, Andrew Hamilton, stated:
ReplyDelete"It is natural, it is a privilege, I will go farther, it is a right, which all free men claim, that they are entitled to complain when they are hurt. They have a right publicly to remonstrate against the abuses of power in the strongest terms, to put their neighbors upon their guard against the craft or open violence of men in authority, and to assert with courage the sense they have of the blessings of liberty, the value they put upon it, and their resolution at all hazards to preserve it as one of the greatest blessings heaven can bestow....
The loss of liberty, to a generous mind, is worse than death. And yet we know that there have been those in all ages who for the sake of preferment, or some imaginary honor, have freely lent a helping hand to oppress, nay to destroy, their country....
This is what every man who values freedom ought to consider. He should act by judgment and not by affection or self-interest; for where those prevail, no ties of either country or kindred are regarded; as upon the other hand, the man who loves his country prefers its liberty to all other considerations, well knowing that without liberty life is a misery....
Power may justly be compared to a great river. While kept within its due bounds it is both beautiful and useful. But when it overflows its banks, it is then too impetuous to be stemmed; it bears down all before it, and brings destruction and desolation wherever it comes. If, then, this is the nature of power, let us at least do our duty, and like wise men who value freedom use our utmost care to support liberty, the only bulwark against lawless power, which in all ages has sacrificed to its wild lust and boundless ambition the blood of the best men that ever lived...."
HWSNBN bloviates:
ReplyDeleteIn sum, the NYT has disclosed to al Qaeda:
1) The exact types of international transactions we are tracking through Swift.
Ummm, what "exact types" (that is, what "types" that were not known before)?
2) The limited parties we are tracking through Swift.
HWSNBN assumes that the story is some kind of exclusive litany of the "parties" being tracked. This is almost certainly not so.
3) The volume of traffic we are monitoring through Swift. This enables the enemy to derive the percentage of traffic we are surveilling for their risk analysis.
Nonsense. I can almost guarantee that all traffic meeting specified criteria are being monitored. Hardly a secret, even if so.
4) The types of targets being surveilled through Swift.
Huh? You mean, like, terrorists?
5) The exact types of domestic transactions we are not monitoring through Swift.
HWSNBN assumes (with no evidence and plenty of reason to believe the contrary) that domestic transactions are not being monitored (but not through SWIFT). But this is a charateristic of the traffic itself.
6) The domestic financial companies which are cooperating with the government and the transaction information those companies are providing.
Huh? Aren't they all?
What a lame argument. Lots of assumptions, little fact. AN dthe little fact there is is almost certainly wrong.
Cheers,
arne:
ReplyDeleteBart: You spend a great deal of time showing that it was public knowledge that the United States had programs to track terrorist financial transactions. Yet, none of your examples show that the means, methods, scope or limits of those programs were public.
Glenn gave his sources, and told what had been revealed. The Times (and other papers') story is publicly available.
Huh? I did not say that Glenn did not provide his sources.
I clearly stated that his sources did not provide the means, methods, scope or limits of the financial transactions intelligence program which the NYT provided in its article.
All HWSNBN has to do is show something in the Times story that wasn't already available (in fact, Glenn challenged any respondent to do exactly that). HWSNBN simply spouts his nonsense once again and ignores his "burden of production". Nothing new; standard HWSNBN operating procedure.
I am not reposting the 2-3 pages I devoted to answering Glenn's challenge. I posted the multiple paragraphs where the NYT detailed the means, methods, scope or limits of the financial transactions intelligence program.
For those who are slow on the uptake such as yourself, I followed that with a summary of six categories of revelations which would provide aid and comfort to the enemy.
Try reading it before inserting your foot into mouth again.
I notice that no one here has even attempted to rebut my list of the NYT revelations. The silence speaks volumes.
Will somebody PLEASE read the letter below to the president:
ReplyDeleteThe president's people like the term, "serving at the pleasure of the president". They also like, "our commander-in-chief".
The president is the commander-in-chief of the military forces. Not of you, me and the next un-military person.
The president "SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PEOPLE"! (you, me and every other un-military person in this country).
The press was given freedom to protect the "PEOPLE'S INTEREST".
When ever there is even a hint of impropriety in the government's treatment of the people, the editorial pages of all newspapers need to light up like the beacon they were intended to be
Bart said "I notice that no one here has even attempted to rebut my list of the NYT revelations. The silence speaks volumes."
ReplyDeleteGet a clue Bart, I don't care what you think and basically consider you to be a brainwashed tool-much like a cult member. Trying to reason with you would be like trying to swith a Moonie to Christianity-another cult in my opinion.
Then again, perhaps the majority of people here don't really care what you think.
How can you say that now that the terrorist know our sources and methods that the New York Times told them about that they wont kill some americans since they dont have to wory about the adminisartion stopping them because they know how the government would catch them.
ReplyDeleteThey want to kill us and now they know how to without getting captured.
Which sources do the terrorists (whoever they are) know know that they did not know before?
Which methods do terrorists know now that they did not know before?
How will this information help a terrorist kill an American, when he would have been unable to do so before?
How soon they forget...
ReplyDeleteHere is the NYT just days after 9/11 calling for strict new banking controls with no concerns at all for oversight
An insinuation of hypocrisy that elides the proposal with the program and assumes that the NYT monolithically opposes the latter?
Weak.
.
Hey bart and shooter, you can relax now. The major's got your back.....
ReplyDeleteGeorge W. Bush never got any Americans killed that's a slander of the worst sort. You should be ashamed of yourself.
ReplyDeleteReally? Check the body count in Iraq, halfwit. Then see what the Katrina count is up to.
Oh, and learn to use a freakin' comma.
.
GWB: "The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties"
ReplyDeleteWhich of those liberties is still intact after 5 years of 'protection' by the Commander-in-Chief of the US military?
Go down the list of those constitutional liberties, and see how much harm GWB's puppeteers have done.
I don't believe the actions are irrational. They are very deliberate and serve a purpose that has everything to do with personal power and wealth. They appear irrational because their objective has very little with the founding principles of this country.
I notice that no one here has even attempted to rebut my list of the NYT revelations. The silence speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteActually, it's a thin novella called "The Argument from Silence." It tells the sad tale of a a halfwit who got his ass handed to him after he foolishly stepped outside the comfy confines of rightwing cant and actually had to make sense for a change.
.
Jeez Major, I hope you use a spell checker on your blog!
ReplyDeleteGeorge W. Bush didn't kill anybody in Iraq the insurgants did that.
ReplyDeleteHow did they get there? Hey, aren't you supposed to be a military guy? Figure it out, Major.
.
I cannot go into what souces the terrorists could use at this point in time because I dont want to give anything away.
ReplyDeleteI think you are making this up. I think you are not aware of any sources whatsoever.
But rest assured there arre many sources and methods the terrorists would love to get.
Go ahead. I'm not asking for new information. Just point out what in this NYT article will help a terrorist kill an American.
Then it would be to late to stop them. Of course nothing matters to you but your communist beliefs.
I'm a lifelong Republican/Libertarian voter. I have no beliefs which could be construed as "communist."
Nothing can change your minds. You don"t listen to facts or reason. You people are disgusting you'r living in the greatest country ever and all you eant to do is help it's enemies.
I'll change my mind. I do it all the time, when new facts come up.
Just float an imaginary chain of events for me, please. It doesn't have to entail any actual data, so our security will be ensured.
What in this NYT column will allow a terrorist to kill an American where they could not have done so before?
Regarding the stridency and coordination of the attack and its focus on the New York Times, let's be logical.
ReplyDeleteThe administration is not widening its focus to the two other offenders: the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. Is it because it hates thw New York Times more than the other two? Why would it hate the paper that has done so much to further the administration's objectives? This is vituperation directed at a friend.
Did they have a falling out? Did feelings get hurt?
Before New York Times (and other media) broke the SWIFT and earlier stories revealing surveillance and other misconduct on George Bush's watch, the administration tried, with some success, to talk the papers out of publishing embarrassing information.
The administration must be working this hard and this loudly to intimidate the New York Times because it is desperate to prevent the publication of other stories that the Times is sitting on--stories that it and the Times have discussed.
Now it all starts to make sense.
I am not reposting the 2-3 pages I devoted to answering Glenn's challenge.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Why should you balk at wasting twice the bandwidth you already have? Are you afraid to be twice the joke?
.
"The LAT and WSJ, possessed of conservative editorial staffs, are immune for this round of purge the press."
ReplyDeleteI think this is a critical point. All three stories appeared on the web the same evening (Thursday) and in print the same morning (Friday). Bart appears to argue that the NYT gave the others the story beforehand but that really seems a stretch to me. Unless there is evidence to confirm a "giveaway" by the NYT, it seems far more likely that all three papers had been working independently perhaps with some of the same sources.
Also intriguing is the fact that while both the NYT and the LAT have indicated that pressure was brought to bear not to publish the story, it has been reported that the WSJ claimed it had NOT been asked to kill the story. http://tinyurl.com/kykmz
If the story was so damaging to national security, why on earth would only two of the papers be urged not to publish while the third would receive, in effect, a green light to do so?
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteIn sum, the NYT has disclosed to al Qaeda:
1) The exact types of international transactions we are tracking through Swift.
Ummm, what "exact types" (that is, what "types" that were not known before)?
Are you dyslexic and unable to read the quoted NYT passages with this information?
Once again from the NYT:
The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas or into and out of the United States....
Swift's database provides a rich hunting ground for government investigators. Swift is a crucial gatekeeper, providing electronic instructions on how to transfer money between 7,800 financial institutions worldwide. The cooperative is owned by more than 2,200 organizations, and virtually every major commercial bank, as well as brokerage houses, fund managers and stock exchanges, uses its services. Swift routes more than 11 million transactions each day, most of them across borders.
The cooperative's message traffic allows investigators, for example, to track money from the Saudi bank account of a suspected terrorist to a mosque in New York. Using intelligence tips about specific targets, agents search the database in what one official described as a "24-7" operation. Customers' names, bank account numbers and other identifying information, can be retrieved, the officials said.
Bart: 3) The volume of traffic we are monitoring through Swift. This enables the enemy to derive the percentage of traffic we are surveilling for their risk analysis.
Nonsense. I can almost guarantee that all traffic meeting specified criteria are being monitored. Hardly a secret, even if so.
Let me re-explain. You take the number of transactions the NYT disclosed were being intercepted and derive a percentage of total transactions of any kind which are being monitored.
In a risk analysis, this gives the enemy a good idea of the basic chances a normal transaction has of being surveilled.
Bart: 5) The exact types of domestic transactions we are not monitoring through Swift.
HWSNBN assumes (with no evidence and plenty of reason to believe the contrary) that domestic transactions are not being monitored (but not through SWIFT). But this is a charateristic of the traffic itself.
Again, here is the NYT:
The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas or into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database...The data does not allow the government to track routine financial activity, like A.T.M. withdrawals, confined to this country, or to see bank balances, Treasury officials said.
Bart: 6) The domestic financial companies which are cooperating with the government and the transaction information those companies are providing.
Huh? Aren't they all?
According to the NYT:
The F.B.I. began acquiring financial records from Western Union and its parent company, First Data Corporation...
This is very similar to USA Today naming the telecoms which were and were not allegedly providing call data to the NSA, letting every al Qaeda know which company it should use in the future to avoid surveillance.
This wasn't done for the public interest, it was done for the money.
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about the Iraq War?
Because, if so, I agree with you.
Oh my god, the major sounds like a five year old. I know it's mean to say that but just read his comments. I thought he was a parody at first, but he keeps making comments.
ReplyDeletebart and shooter242 can articulate what they're saying even though most of us disagree with them.
They believe that the Bush administration ought to be allowed to act in complete secrecy, with no oversight of any kind.
ReplyDeleteThis is provably false. Congress oversees these programs through the intelligence committees, and Congress has passed laws that harshly punish the act of revealing state secrets. You are either lying or absurdly misinformed.
There is not a single sentence in the Times banking report that could even arguably "help the terrorists."
This also is provably false. As the Sec. Treasury said in his reply to Bill Keller, Managing Editor of the NYT:
"You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable."
I grant that terrorist likely knew that we were monitoring financial transactions --- but they did not know how we monitor them nor the scope of our capabilities. Collections techniques are the most closely guarded secrets in the intelligence community for good reason.
Moreover, many terrorists were getting caught by the program --- so they must not have known about it.
The NYT has done real damage.
The reason there is "no evidence of abuse" is precisely because the administration exercises these powers in total secrecy.
You lie again here. There are three processes for challenging classified programs: in the Executive Branch through the Inspector General, in the Legislative Branch through the Intelligence Committees, and in the Judicial Branch through special courts.
All of your points fall to this simple fact.
The Founders unequivocally opted for excess disclosures by the media over excess government secrecy and restraints on the press.
Again, this is provably false. Federalist #64 reads clearly on the subject:
"It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery. Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly. The convention have done well, therefore, in so disposing of the power of making treaties, that although the President must, in forming them, act by the advice and consent of the Senate, yet he will be able to manage the business of intelligence in such a manner as prudence may suggest."
George Washington wrote:
"necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged...[U]pon Secrecy, Success depends in Most Enterprizes...and for want of it, they are generally defeated..."
You characterization of the Founder’s view of secrecy in government is an outrageous piece of misinformation.
How can any rational person believe that the reporters and editors of The New York Times want to help terrorists attack the U.S.?
Here you have a point. We don’t know what the editors of the NYT want. All we know is that their actions tend to aid the enemy and confound the allies.
Your arguments in this post are rubbish, sir.
All we know is that their actions tend to aid the enemy and confound the allies.
ReplyDeleteNo evidence of that. Judith Miller, on the other hand ....
.
"The LAT and WSJ, possessed of conservative editorial staffs, are immune for this round of purge the press."
ReplyDeleteTo start, the LAT is every bit as left as the NYT. The WSJ is right.
Once again, I do not give a damn who the media source is. If they do the crime, they should be doing time.
As far as texan George W. Bush had no choice to invade iraq. He didn't start this fight Sadam did.
ReplyDeleteYou, sir, are a low grade moron, and in no position to lecture anyone on "reason."
.
To start, the LAT is every bit as left as the NYT.
ReplyDeleteWhich is to say not at all.
But then again, that's what you get for taking your news from Mallard Fillmore.
.
As far as prunes I'm just not going to waste my time arguing with a person who cant listen to reason.
ReplyDeleteOK. I accept your implicit admission that you just made everything up.
It's ok, we all want to feel important sometimes.
The argument that the media is tipping off the 'terists' works for many Americans because those who are receptive to it (the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh audience) are among the most ignorant and misinformed people in the world. Rush manipulates them with divisive emotional rhetoric and they are convinced it makes them informed critical thinkers, not that they would never think to question him. It is easy for them to believe that terrorists are no better informed. If only that were true. Terrorists who couldn't find America on a map would pose little threat.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me the way many Americans, and not just the wingnuts, have been able to rationalize a lot of this away is to compartmentalize it as only having to do with security. It's as if they believe we can have all the protection of a police state by giving Bush dictatorial powers only in matters pertaining to security, and still enjoy freedom if we maintain the sham of a constitutional republic with a pretense of democratic representation in all other matters. The distinction is a false one of course, since the administration can arbitrarily determine what constitutes a matter of security and what makes a person an enemy of the state. It all comes down to people fundamentally forgetting that freedom comes with a price.
Instapundit says this:
ReplyDeleteIf America is going to wage a war against terrorism, it must indeed act on all fronts. In 2006, it needs to act on the home front and direct its attention to those whose war on the administration is unconstrained by the espionage laws of the United States.
He is criticizing those who are critical of BushCo by accusing them of disregarding espionage laws. But the criticism of BushCo right now is that they are disregarding the espionage laws - FISA - in a massive and unchecked manner. Hypocracy is his MO. Accuse the other side of what they are accusing you of. That my friends is called spin.
Katinula:
ReplyDelete"Its the same thing as blaming the media for reporting the bad news from Iraq, "swift boating" the generals who have come out to criticize the administration and Rumsfeld and the list goes on. For God's sake, it is NEVER their fault."
Anonymous:
"Back in the day any Iranian who opposed the rule of the Ayatollah Khomeini was said to be "making war on God." Nice to see our domestic wingers adopt the practice."
It needs to be said more plainly: our administration is on a Christian mission. Open debate and reason are unwelcome--even blasphemous. Katinula is more literally correct than intended when she wrote "For God's sake, it is never their fault." This is what comes from the institutional superstition we call religion.
No serious, sane person could really be accusing the NY Times of plotting in collusion with Al Qaeda to destroy America; even if you accept the premise that they're simply misguided or irresponsible, it's quite a leap to assume traitorous intent.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the subtle underlying implication in all these accusations (even the seemingly more "reasonable" ones) is that there is some amorphous group of bad people out there (Liberals, elite intellectuals, the NYT, Islamofascists, brown people in general, etc. etc.) who are the "enemy", and therefore can legitimately be accused, blamed, silenced, harassed and ultimately (we must presume) disposed of.
Twas ever thus. Thank god for Jefferson and his ilk.
~ Trendar
This has been said many times, many ways, but it needs to be said again:
ReplyDeleteJust replace "liberal" with "Jew" (or any despised group du jour) in order to comprehend just how dangerous and despicable the lynch mob mentality is.
Any time you see "liberal" used in the hate media, you see the triggering of a deep psychological fear of the "other."
It cannot really be fought. It must either wear itself out or be defeated.
You cannot engage it.
More questions for Bart (BTW, although I'm in vehement disagreement, I appreciate the brevity of your responses):
ReplyDelete1. You believe the United States is in a State of War. Has there been a Declaration of War by Congress?
2. You believe it is impossible to stop abusive surveillance before it begins. Why do you believe FISA failed to act as a preemptive check against abusive surveillance these past 28 years?
3. You do not want the US Government to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens. Do you presume the NSA's warrantless surveillance program does not involve American citizens?
4. How do you believe publishing information that is in the public domain, but not common knowledge, is harmful to national security?
5. How do you distinguish between stories that are politically harmful to President Bush, and stories that are harmful to national security?
6. Can you provide an example of a story that revealed information that was politically harmful to President Bush, but not harmful to national security?
You cant call me a moron.
ReplyDeleteGo to hell!!
In point of simple fact, I did just call you a moron, which means that I can. Furthermore, there is no such observable phenomenon as "hell."
My opinion of you is confirmed by continuing observation.
.
Bart: "Show me a single instance where any Founder argued that the Press had a duty or a right to publish the details of classified intelligence gathering aimed at an enemy?"
ReplyDeleteShow me a single instance where the Constitution gives President Jr the right to violate-at will and with no congressional oversight-the same Constitution he's sworn to uphold
I will take that non response as an admission that you cannot offer any instance of a Founder arguing that the Press had a duty or a right to publish the details of classified intelligence gathering aimed at an enemy.
Challege accepted:
"The Chief Magistrate cannot enter the arena of the newspapers." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1811. ME 13:64
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
"It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803. ME 10:356
"I am... for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
"No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will. If virtuous, it need not fear the fair operation of attack and defence. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth whether in religion, law or politics. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know nor notice its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:406
"Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart. 1799.
"I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.
"[This is] a country which is afraid to read nothing, and which may be trusted with anything, so long as its reason remains unfettered by law." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan, 1816. ME 14:463
"Printing presses shall be subject to no other restraint than liableness to legal prosecution for false facts printed and published." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft of Virginia Constitution, 1783. ME 2:298, Papers 6:304
"Since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opinions in league with false facts, the press confined to truth needs no other legal restraint. The public judgment will correct false reasonings and opinions on a full hearing of all parties, and no other definite line can be drawn between the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties which this rule would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381
"The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Bonus one, slightly off topic
"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632
All that from just one founder. Jefferson always trusted the press, and more specifically the people, with information than government.
I don't recall the wingnuts being angry at the NY Times when that paper was printing Judy Miller's bogus WMD stories....
ReplyDeleteI think it should be obvious by now that "The Major" is a prankster having fun.
ReplyDeleteAh, but let's not forget the unstated goal of the Bushistas. Sure, it would be great to shut the press up by abrogating the First Amendment, but that might turn out to be sticky business. Why not, then, use the nazi nutjobs out there to bring so much shit down on the heads of the Bill Kellers of the world that they just shut up rather than risk wingnut wrath? A compliant, self-censoring press is, as a practical matter, almost as good as a state-run press, and it's a hell of a lot easier to pull off than outright censorship. I would be astonished if Bushco takes any legal action against the Times; that would certainly be like poking at a hornet's nest. Better to let the Malkins and Coulters of the world scare them into silence.
ReplyDeleteJEFF YOUNGER SAID: This is provably false. Congress oversees these programs through the intelligence committees, and Congress has passed laws that harshly punish the act of revealing state secrets. You are either lying or absurdly misinformed.
ReplyDeleteHilariously, you claim that it's "provably false" that there is no congressional oversight for this banking surveillance but then fail to "prove" anything. Provide a link for this assertion, because you are wrong - it's as simple as that.
The Bush administration obtains these records by administrative subpoena and neither Congress (nor the courts) has any oversight role whatsoever in knowing about, let alone approving of, the issuance of any subpoenas for these banking records. You are claiming that Congress exercises oversight over this surveillance and you are simply wrong. The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee confirmed today that she did not even know about the existence of the program -- let alone being briefed on how it was being operated -- until very recently when its public disclosure became imminent.
Why come here and assert factually false claims (that Congress exercises oversight over this program) and then provide no link? Do you really think anyone is going to be fooled by that? This isn't Hugh Hewitt's blog.
I grant that terrorist likely knew that we were monitoring financial transactions --- but they did not know how we monitor them nor the scope of our capabilities. Collections techniques are the most closely guarded secrets in the intelligence community for good reason.
Name one relevant fact disclosed by the NY Times article - just one - that was not already in the public record. It was already known that we monitor SWIFT for terrorist financial transactions. What else did the NYT disclose that would instruct you as to how to avoid detection if you are a terrorist? Can anyone answer that?
And don't spit out meaningless, pompous generalities ("they disclosed means and methods"). Be specific - it's the least you can do if you want to put people
in prison on charges of treason.
Your characterization of the Founder’s view of secrecy in government is an outrageous piece of misinformation.
Nobody denied that secrecy is sometimes important and legitimate in government - the point is that that the Founders demanded that each branch be subject to checks and balances by the other two branches, and that no limits were permitted on what the press could publish about the Government.
Those are not controversial principles in this country. At least, they never used to be. And yet I am genuinely amazed at how frequently I find myself in debates with Bush followers over the legitimacy of those most basic American values.
Since I didn't refute Bart's list point for point he probably didn't notice it.
ReplyDeleteIf you spend much time trying to argue with bart, you will see that he consistently ignores any points or questions he thinks might hurt his arguments. I've been reading the comments on this blog for months, and he does it ALL the time.
Nevertheless, he still bitches when he thinks he's not being taken seriously enough.
xejycfaller96 said...
ReplyDeleteMore questions for Bart (BTW, although I'm in vehement disagreement, I appreciate the brevity of your responses):
Ah, another cross examination...
1. You believe the United States is in a State of War. Has there been a Declaration of War by Congress?
Yes, the AUMF was a declaration of war for the reasons I posted above.
2. You believe it is impossible to stop abusive surveillance before it begins. Why do you believe FISA failed to act as a preemptive check against abusive surveillance these past 28 years?
That depends what you mean by your term "abusive surveillance." I am assuming you believe that the NSA Program and the alleged gathering of telephone call records is abusive. That being the case, FISA was utterly useless as a preemptive check against the executive performing that surveillance because the executive didn't bother to seek FISA warrants in the first instance.
In the case of true illegal surveillance like the Clinton's reviewing the FBI files of their political opponents, the Clintons simply ignored the law making that a crime.
3. You do not want the US Government to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens.
That is a misstatement. I said the government needs to operate under the limits of the 4th Amendment, which only requires warrants under certain circumstances.
Do you presume the NSA's warrantless surveillance program does not involve American citizens?
I presume that the program targets foreign groups and their agents in the US as has been leaked and reported.
Members of agents of foreign groups like al Qaeda can be American citizens, although that seems to be unlikely given the very few American al Qaeda we have captured.
If an American citizen is a member or agent of al Qaeda, the government my conduct intelligence gathering against him or her without a warrant, but is required under the 4th Amendment to obtain a warrant to continue surveillance when the primary purpose shifts to criminal evidence collection.
4. How do you believe publishing information that is in the public domain, but not common knowledge, is harmful to national security?
Let me give you a hypothetical because everyone here is too emotionally invested in their views of the current programs.
The ENIGMA program was a computerized system which successfully broke the Axis radio codes and allowed us to listen in on their operational traffic.
Let's assume that the outlines of such a code breaking system had been discussed in some academic papers and some specialty professional journals.
However, let us also assume that knowledge of such a system was not public knowledge and there was no evidence that the enemy knew about these papers and journals nevertheless that the US had successfully fielded such a system.
The outline of the ENIGMA program might have been technically available in the "public domain," but it was unknown to the enemy.
Let's then assume that the Elephant leaning WSJ disclosed the existence, means, methods and successes of the ENIGMA program in a front page article.
Under these circumstances, the damage to national security would be the same whether those academic papers and journals existed or not.
5. How do you distinguish between stories that are politically harmful to President Bush, and stories that are harmful to national security?
These choices cans be, but are not necessarily, mutually exclusive.
The story that Bush was AWOL from his NG unit during Vietnam would be harmful to him personally, but have no effect on national security.
The NYT revelations of the NSA and Swift intelligence gathering programs are harmful to national security, but arguably helpful to Mr. Bush politically because he can show he is working to protect the nation and the opposition supports disclosing intelligence programs to the enemy.
However, the revelation of the Abu Ghraib abuses is both harmful to the war effort by providing the enemy with propaganda and harmful to Mr. Bush politically.
While I don't mind answering your questions on a slow afternoon at the office, does all of this have a point?
Don't forget to donate some money by clicking the "Donate" box above, so that Glenn does not have to eat cat food for dinner
ReplyDeleteWell if glenn didn't ask you to post this, HOW DO YOU KNOW HE DOESN'T LIKE CATFOOD!
there's those soft, gourmet treats that swim in gravy and smell so delicious. Then theres the "stay moist in the bowl" treats.
And don't forget the stuff cat's ask for my name Meow Mix's tuna, chicken, liver......
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
cat food.... I wish my human would give me some now...
This administration has no respect for freedom of the press. In fact, it has little if any respect for the constitution per se. Remember what the Great Decider said about the constitution: "Its just a goddamned piece of paper!" That statement has not been given much play by the MSM, but it clearly indicates where the man stands on our rights under that great document.
ReplyDeleteDisenchanted Dave writes:
ReplyDeleteReading the current edition of Cato or NR or the Weekly Standard or the WSJ ed page really isn't all that different from reading back issues...I love the way Jeffrey Friedman put it in Critical Review (he was talking about libertarians): they have such rigid ideologies that they have a "perpetual obligation to defend" their position on every subject, even "before one has the necessary information to assess its accuracy.".... We don't want the debate to be about big government versus small government or other "big ideas."
I strongly object to equating Cato with NR, and especially, the freakin' Weekly Standard. Dave, there are some of us libertarians in the coalition opposing the Bush power grabs, and we will continue to promote a debate "about big government versus small government or other 'big ideas.'" Maybe you don't want that kind of discussion, but others of us emphatically do. (Obviously I disagree with your characterization of libertarian beliefs, but explaining why would be quite OT.)
Glenn writes: Great questions, Yankee. The discussions over the weekend over whether to string up the New York Times were so intense, widespread, hateful and UNCHALLENGED that it was really surreal, like one was in a different country. And the ones who drove and led the discussion were JOURNALISTS themselves.
Libertarian Jon Henke, in a very thoughtful post this past Sunday, entitled: Media: 'the inconveniences attending too much liberty', linked to Hume's Ghost post here, and declared:
I'm conflicted on the legal, moral and ethical questions in this case. But 'Hume's Ghost' asks the question properly...
****
I would ask these bloggers how the line between what and what can not be published is to be drawn? If journalists can be prosecuted for publishing what their conscience tells them to be information vital to the public interest, what is to stop the government from classifying anything that it does not want to be known? How are we to decide when a journalist can be prosecuted and when he can not? Are we really that willing to give the federal government such a tool as the ability to prosecute the press for revealing information it wishes to keep hidden?
Let's stop and have a discussion before we let terrorist inspired fear potentially cause us to sacrifice one of the fundamental requirements of a free society - a free press able to provide the public with the information they need need to be self-governing.
***
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." — Thomas Jefferson
(Jon took a lot of abuse in comments from pro-Bush authoritarians.)
And granted, not posted until Monday morning, but here is a Reason libertarian on the matter.
I cannot go into what souces the terrorists could use at this point in time because I dont want to give anything away. But rest assured there arre many sources and methods the terrorists would love to get. Then it would be to late to stop them. Of course nothing matters to you but your communist beliefs. Nothing can change your minds. You don"t listen to facts or reason. You people are disgusting you'r living in the greatest country ever and all you eant to do is help it's enemies.
ReplyDeleteSomehow it always degenerates from the sublime (Glenn's initial post)to the disingenuous (Bart's posts) to the ridiculous (Shooter's posts) to the truly inane (the major's offerings).
I miss the Latin translations.
nerpzilla said...
ReplyDeleteBart: "Show me a single instance where any Founder argued that the Press had a duty or a right to publish the details of classified intelligence gathering aimed at an enemy?"
Challenge accepted:
I truly appreciate the work which went into gathering these Jefferson quotes, but none of them address whether the Press has a duty or a right to publish the details of classified intelligence gathering aimed at an enemy.
However, I would like to address a couple of these quotes:
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
I whole heartedly agree with this opinion. However, the NYT was not disclosing illegal activity.
"It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803. ME 10:356
Nor is anyone accusing the NYT of slandering the government with false accusations.
"I am... for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
Nor is anyone seeking criminal sanctions against the NYT for its opinions.
Once again, no Founder and no court has ever held that the Press has a duty or a right to publish the details of classified intelligence gathering aimed at an enemy. None.
Shooter242:
ReplyDeleteOh please, this alone is a fine example of overwought hyperbole designed to scare the unwary. If only liberals showed the fear and disgust of Islamo-fascists, like they do Bush. Tsk.
Every single word out of anyone's mouth in support of every single illegal measure promoted to defeat the dreaded terrorism menace can be described in precisely this way.
It's long seemed to me the incredible disconnect between all the tough talking and the unabashed, irrational fear displayed by all those who insist we must pay any price to keep their pants dry, ought to, by itself rob their arguments of any credibility.
Shooter, bart, et al are so pissed at the rest of us for not being absolutely frightened out of our wits the way they are, they're inspired to tip the teeter totter of thinking to its absolute nadir of rationality.
"Overwrought hyperbole" is perfectly acceptable if you're scared shitless I guess.
This situation will continue to get uglier before it gets better. The problem is that the core of the Republican cancer is dwindling in public support, and now is fairly firmly lodged in a position significantly below majority status. They are getting increasingly vituperative as they sink further into denial about their fate in the trash heap of history. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they still have loads of money to play with, and are well positioned in the executive branch, the judiciary, and the media.
ReplyDeleteWe as a society need to figure out how to come to grips with this set of reality-denying hammerheads. They unfortunately compensate with hate and threats of violence for their lack of historical knowledge, rational ideas about the framework of the country, or any idea about how to coexist peacefully with their own fellow countrymen, much less citizens of the other nations of the world.
I expect some real ugliness in November. And then we're going to have to decide what we're going to do about a growing crisis of creeping facism.
Great article.
ReplyDeleteYou cant call me a moron.
ReplyDeleteGo to hell!!
In point of simple fact, I did just call you a moron, which means that I can. Furthermore, there is no such observable phenomenon as "hell."
My opinion of you is confirmed by continuing observation.
Love-15
I don't fear "Islamo-fascists" because I have the sense to realize that "Islamo-fascists" no more have the capability to "pose an existential threat to Western civilization" (Tony Blair's hysterical phrase) than Timothy McVeigh had the power to destroy Oklahoma or the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult could eradicate Japan.
ReplyDeleteHitler and Hirohito failed to destroy Western civilization despite possessing hundreds of thousands of troops, tanks and planes. Stalin couldn't either, though he had an even bigger military -- and a few thousand hydrogen bombs to boot! "Islamo-fascism" commands none of these resources, yet the NeoConservatives would have us believe it is the single greatest threat the Western world has ever faced.
Wow - you really try to parse out the absolutism in Jefferson's statements, can't you? And you can't maintain consistency.
ReplyDeleteBart said
"As I observed before, the NYT article itself is a criminal indictment of this rogue newspaper. All a prosecutor would need to do is fill in the appropriate sections of the Espionage Act and submit it to a grand jury.
The only thing holding back Justice is the politics of picking a fight with the Donkey media before an election."
2:11
"Nor is anyone seeking criminal sanctions against the NYT for its opinions."
7:06 PM
Jefferson, like many of the founders, thought freedom of the press to be absolute, save for libel. The single best example of this is the fallout from the Alien and Sedition Acts, described in the watershed New York Times v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 276 (1964)
"Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, 16 the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. Fines levied in its prosecution were repaid by Act of Congress on the ground that it was unconstitutional. See, e. g., Act of July 4, 1840, c. 45, 6 Stat. 802, accompanied by H. R. Rep. No. 86, 26th Cong., 1st Sess. (1840). Calhoun, reporting to the Senate on February 4, 1836, assumed that its invalidity was a matter "which no one now doubts." Report with Senate bill No. 122, 24th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3. Jefferson, as President, pardoned those who had been convicted and sentenced under the Act and remitted their fines, stating: "I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the sedition law, because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image." Letter to Mrs. Adams, July 22, 1804, 4 Jefferson's Works (Washington ed.), pp. 555, 556. The invalidity of the Act has also been assumed by Justices of this Court. See Holmes, J., dissenting and joined by Brandeis, J., in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 ; Jackson, J., dissenting in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 288 -289; Douglas, The Right of the People (1958), p. 47. See also Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed., Carrington, 1927), pp. 899-900; Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1942), pp. 27-28. These views reflect a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment."
Let us also note what the Sedition Act prohibited:
"That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years." An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States.", Section 2.
The Sedition act, while never held unconstitutional by the Supremes, is recognized in Sullivan as such.
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
I whole heartedly agree with this opinion. However, the NYT was not disclosing illegal activity.
We don't know until the Courts test it, do we?
"It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803. ME 10:356
Nor is anyone accusing the NYT of slandering the government with false accusations.
True, but Jefferson feels the Chief Magistrate (the President) has no right to interfere with the press, and will leave libel to civil actions. Note Also:
"The Chief Magistrate cannot enter the arena of the newspapers." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1811. ME 13:64
I also like how you ignored this one:
"Printing presses shall be subject to no other restraint than liableness to legal prosecution for false facts printed and published." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft of Virginia Constitution, 1783. ME 2:298, Papers 6:304
Freedom of the Press is absolute, except for civil libel, and Jefferson (and all of the other big name framers) felt the same way. When the Federalists tried to manipulate the press through punitive action in the Sedition Act, they got slapped down in the 1800 election, and never returned as any kind of force in politics agains. Here's hoping history repeats itself!