So the terrorists will know what we are doing to stop them, and so that they can change their approach and hopefully be able to launch some more attacks on this country, which we at the NYT hope will totally discredit the Republicans, and so that we …..

How hard was it for the media not to reveal details about a program that by all accounts, including the NYT’s own reporting, was quite successful? Apparently they had no problem revealing the program despite the entreaties from a bipartisan group of ….

New York Times Editor Bill Keller responded to the tons of email and letters of anger that were sent to them over revealing National Security issues.
A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorist…

“And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.”

And yet us people, who invented this country, expected that our freedom of speech would entail a responsibility to express that freedom, which would protect from an abuse of the media, as an essential ingredient for self-government. We reject that it is un-wise, and un-patriotic, to always take the NYT editorial stance at it’s word, or to surrender to the NYT important decisions about the merits of an expression of free speech.

“The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases.” True, back in colonial days. Now how does that apply to today? Did it apply in the Clinton administrations?

“The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest.” Whoa…that’s a bit of a stretch.

“For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy.” First of all, it’s not ‘sectarian violence and insurgency’. It is terrorism: a group of extremists who profane a religion and murder in the name of that religion. And another group who wants to regain power (authoritarian and exclusive in nature) at any cost. Neither of these groups wants freedom of speech…they are trying to play the ‘Pallywood’ game, and NYT is playing along…for what purposes…

“After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco.” Source and context? Are you implying that the Bay of Pigs and Iraq are conceptually connected? That requires more than an OpEd. Oh, and Bay of Pigs was over 30 years ago…been a few administation changes since…and a few laws passed since…

“Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress.” Didn’t your own article say that Congressional committees were briefed and that this particular program was legal? What are you really going after?

“…but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government’s actions and over the adequacy of oversight.” Oh, so you are implying that some unnamed official is concerned about this specific program, and you felt, even though your conclusion is that it is a legal program and Congress has been briefed, that because one (or more, you don’t list your sources) dissented, you felt obligated to publish?

“It’s not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don’t know about it.” WHOA…I need to call a lawyer on this…getting whiplash on this one…

So, your article says the program was briefed to Congress, and was legal. Then you claim in this OpEd that because the program was never tested in courts, it ‘may’ not be legal? Just how do we test this in court? Have AQ file a suit? Or maybe the Congressional oversight? Is a ‘legal test’ proactive or reactive? If proactive, then doesn’t the Congressional oversight constitute a de facto ‘OK’ from the legislative branch? Just when does the judiciary branch get involved? And how? And just how does the issue of ‘some bank officials worry that a temporary program’ that ‘has taken on an air of permanence’ matter? If they are so worried about it, why don’t they file a class action law suit to test it?

“…we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don’t know about it.” But didn’t you already preempt this by publishing this article against the expressed statements of the administration? And wasn’t there already Congressional oversight? Was this oversight not sufficient? That wasn’t in your article, or this OpEd. In fact, you state that “we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far”, which, in a chicken-shit way, implies that the current oversight is not up to task. But you provide nothing to support this, other that “some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality”. Circular logic, at best.

No, the NYT position seems to be, “we’ll print whatever we want, and you, the sheepish reader can f*** off”. And just why should I trust the NYT on this matter?

I have not read the letter in its entirety. I read only four (4) sentences….