Americans Deserve Better
Robert Cox has an op-ed in the Examiner that tears into Bill Keller's poor "explanation" of why the New York Times published the details of the money transfer monitoring program.
This past Sunday, The Times’ executive editor published an open letter in which Keller incoherently weaves together disparate threads of past Times coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bay of Pigs invasion, administration criticism of media reporting of terror attacks in Iraq and other recent disclosures of covert intelligence operations appends a detailed critique of what purports to be the Bush administration’s case for holding off on the SWIFT story and ties up the entire package with the risible assertion that The Times decision was not borne of “any animus toward the current administration.” Nowhere does Keller address the particulars of why he felt it necessary to run the SWIFT story last Friday.
Americans deserve better.
Keller claims, “some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality” but the article cites only one expert, L. Richard Fischer, and presents him as unfamiliar with the details of the program. The New York Times quotes a “former senior counterterrorism official,” saying, “The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you’re sitting, troubling “the potential for abuse is enormous” without disclosing whether this former official might have some axe to grind against the administration. Richard Clarke, anyone? The paper claims “Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified.” Why is it “nearly 20” and not “19.” Will the Times go back to those 19 people and get them on the record now that the program has been made public? The Times’ claims “Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program.” How many is “some?” Fifteen? Two? If two, then which two?
Cox has hit this one on the head. The Times asks us to take them at their word, but has a poor track record on their veracity. Keller believes that the Times is granted an oversight role on the government. Who oversees them, then? An unelected elite telling us what we should know and what the government may not keep secret?
One of the things I find amusing about this situation is that many of the defenders of the Times are fulminating about the "lockstep" the more right leaning bloggers are displaying on this condemnation of the Times' actions. I can only speak for myself here, but unlike Kos and other big name leftwing bloggers, I am on no mailing lists that coordinate messages. I choose what I want to blog about and make up my own mind about my position on things. Methinks they projectith a bit too much.
Read the Examiner, it's a well written critique.
By FormerRighty, Thursday, 29 June , 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Illegal, secret programs should be exposed. The President is not The King–we’re supposed to have checks and balances. Conservatives used to support that idea. The Republicans may not be in power forever, and all of this stuff could be used against them when that happens, because the precedent has been set for little or no oversight.
Good for The Times. They are doing their job.
By Gaius, Thursday, 29 June , 2006 @ 2:52 pm
Gee, Former, the Times article said no laws were broken. So how exactly does the program become illegal? The Chair of the 9/11 commission said the same thing. The program violated no laws, had Congressional oversight and had firm controls.
By Shawn, Thursday, 29 June , 2006 @ 6:45 pm
FormerRighty, Keller pointed out that a free press is a protective measure against the government, which is correct. But what protection is there against a rogue press? No laws were broken by this program and empowered government officials asked them to not run the story in the interest of national security. Nothing but harm can result from what the Times did. And I would remind you that there was bi-partisan support for the program and for the Times not revealing it.
By FormerRighty, Friday, 30 June , 2006 @ 1:44 pm
You know, the Bushies have been bragging about about the fact that they’ve been monitoring financial transactions for years–why are they upset when one aspect of this is disclosed?
Please, show me where in the U.W. Constitution is says that the Executive Branch has the power to institute a program like this without Congressional authorization.
By Gaius, Friday, 30 June , 2006 @ 1:49 pm
You keep right on trying, don’t you? Subpoenas were issued, Congress was informed - show me where the law was broken and we’ll talk.