The Essential Quotes
Dean Baquet, editor of the LA Times, and Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, co-wrote a piece explaining why they went to press with the secret Bush administration program to monitor international banking transactions. There are a few essential quotes from the piece, which I'll italicize in the excerpt below, but read the whole thing:
Thirty-five years ago Friday, in the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the government from suppressing the secret Vietnam War history called the Pentagon Papers, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "The government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people."As that sliver of judicial history reminds us, the conflict between the government's passion for secrecy and the press' drive to reveal is not of recent origin. This did not begin with the Bush administration, although the polarization of the electorate and the daunting challenge of terrorism have made the tension between press and government as clamorous as at any time since Justice Black wrote.
Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price.
In recent years our papers have brought you a great deal of information the White House never intended for you to know — classified secrets about the questionable intelligence that led the country to war in Iraq, about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, about the transfer of suspects to countries that are not squeamish about using torture, about eavesdropping without warrants.
As Robert G. Kaiser, associate editor of the Washington Post, asked recently in that newspaper: "You may have been shocked by these revelations, or not at all disturbed by them, but would you have preferred not to know them at all? If a war is being waged in America's name, shouldn't Americans understand how it is being waged?"
Government officials, understandably, want it both ways. They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he was scandalized by our decision to report on the bank-monitoring program. But in September 2003, the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters — from our papers, the Wall Street Journal and others — to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department's efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary's team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat.
...It is not always a matter of publishing an article or killing it.
Sometimes we deal with the security concerns by editing out gratuitous detail that lends little to public understanding but might be useful to the targets of surveillance. The Washington Post, at the administration's request, agreed not to name the specific countries hosting secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons, deeming that information not essential for American readers. The New York Times, in its article on National Security Agency eavesdropping, left out some technical details.
Even the banking articles, which the president and vice president have condemned, did not dwell on the operational or technical aspects of the program but on its sweep, the questions about its legal basis and the issues of oversight.
We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.
Here's Frank Rich on the topic from an E&P link, which you can read without a membership to Times Overly-Select (the pay service that keeps the Times' most influential columnists from being read by very many people).
And to anybody who suggests the papers tipped off the terrorists, do you really think it's any secret to the terrorists that their activities -- financial, travel, meetings, and all other kinds -- are being monitored?
"And to anybody who suggests the papers tipped off the terrorists, do you really think it's any secret to the terrorists that their activities -- financial, travel, meetings, and all other kinds -- are being monitored?"
That must be why the program never caught any of them. Right?
Jim Treacher at July 2, 2006 9:22 AM
As Hanford (Jack?) from the Wall Street Journal said this morning on "Meet The Press," Bush himself announced in the Rose Garden we'd be going after their financial sources and all the rest.
We would have caught many more terrorists if we'd actually have gone after the terrorists instead of a murderous dictator named Saddam. He was brutal and horrible, but so are dictators around the globe, and nobody was blowing up the marketplace daily when he was in power.
Amy Alkon at July 2, 2006 10:13 AM
"We would have caught many more terrorists..."
Wait, so the program did catch terrorists? Even though they knew we were looking for them? That's nuts. That's like the cops catching criminals even though the criminals know they're being hunted.
Jim Treacher at July 2, 2006 10:29 AM
> We would have caught many
> more terrorists if we'd actually
> have gone after the terrorists
I don't think the invasion was a distraction of resources that could have been used to catch terrorists. After all, the little fuckers are famous for hiding.
Crid at July 2, 2006 11:31 AM
Wake up, America. You're being lied to again. You know what should tip you off that Bush is flat out lying (AGAIN)? First of all, don't you think it's a little interesting that he directs his ire to the New York Times only? He complains about a leak, then blames the Times for printing it. Not a single word or concern regarding the identity of the imbecile who leaked it in the first place...? Shouldn't the one who leaked be the one accused of treason? I could rest my case right there, but I haven't even played my high card yet.
This supposed leak perpetrated by the New York Times was actually perpetrated several years ago by Bush himself. Don't believe me?
Google the next five words and see what you come up with:
Terrorist Financial Network Fact Sheet
Here's what it says at the governments own website: Note especially the two sections I italicized.
See, everyone? If the NYT "leaked" the fact that the U.S. was now "following the money" to lead us to more terrorists, they did nothing that Bush himself didn't do almost five years ago! The only "new" information revealed by the New York Times with the data miner (SWIFT) used to get the job done. Clear, everyone?
If I were editor of the New York Times, I would have a two-word message for the White House: "Blow me."
Seen enough proof? Tough shit. I decided you need more.
Check out this from Buzzflash. And again, note the parts I have italicized, if you don't care to read the anti-Bush rhetoric (however justified it is).
I never thought I'd live to see the day that I'd say this, but thank God that the Wall Street Journal editorial board are idiots! Game, set, and match to me. Hooray!
Regards,
Patrick
Whosoever believeth that wrath is righteous or that divinity is appeased by human suffering does not understand God. - Mary Baker Eddy
Patrick at July 2, 2006 11:51 AM
For some reason, my hyperlink commands didn't work. So, the URL for the first quote is: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011107-6.html
The Buzzflash article can be found here: http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/06/07/ana06054.html
So, even though I am not an editor of the New York Times, I still have my two word message for the White House: "Blow me."
Patrick at July 2, 2006 12:06 PM
I've turned off live HTML links...which didn't seem to diminish spam, so I'll turn them back on. One problem...I can't find the place I checked the box to disable the live HTML links. Any MT users know where it is?
UPDATE: actually, I found it and turned it back on...so now links and e-mail addresses should be live. Past ones may be as well, or maybe just future ones. Not sure.
Amy Alkon at July 2, 2006 12:30 PM
Sorry, my old links are still dead. But at least I posted the URLs.
Patrick at July 2, 2006 1:50 PM
...yyyyyyep.
Jim Treacher at July 3, 2006 12:10 AM
Leave a comment