Via the Weekly Standard comes what I consider an asinine and hyperbolic statement: National Security Be Damned
The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.
This kind of statement, while it plays to those who are angry about the situation, does absolutely zero to further a serious discussion.
One can argue that the program is legitimate or that it shouldn’t have been disclosed (although I remain skeptical that the massive amount of damage that has been attributed to this story is warranted).
Calling the Time a “national security threat” is shrill and hyperbolic and aside from stroking the feelings of those offended by the story, I don’t see what the constructive purpose of the formulation is supposed to be.
Of course it seems that more and more that which passes for “commentary” these days is designed not to provoke thought and offer true criticism, but rather is aimed at pleasing the disposition of the reader.
At any rate, here’s the deal on the NYT story:
1) The NYT ultimately wants to sell papers and enhance its image as a major player in the world of information gathering and dissemination–its called “capitalism” and is a concept I thought conservatives were supposed to understand. Newspaper like to print big stories, it sells papers and impresses advertisers.
And it isn’t as if the NYT doesn’t try to comply at times with requests by the administration on publishing national security stories: remember, they did delay the NSA wiretap story for almost a year, when they could have published it before the election and might have damaged Bush’s re-election bid (and when that revelation came out, the left-wing commentators accused the Times of being a right-wing rag, but times change, I guess).
Not, by the way, that am I specifically defending the Time–it is just that this is the kind of behavior one would expect from the press, and it isn’t just because it is the Bush administration. (How soon we forget all the cries that the NYT was anti-Clinton because of its coverage and editorializing about the Lewinski saga).
In short: this is how newspapers behave in an open society.
2) To the specific story at hand: given the various revelations of the Bush administration asserting inherent Article II powers that are of a dubious nature for some of its other anti-terror programs, and the fact that they aren’t too keen on serious oversight by the other branches, it is not a big shock that the press would consider yet another program of this nature to be news.
If the Bush administration believes that these program are legal and necessary, then they should better utilize the courts and the Congress in overseeing them. If they did that, the impetus for these being major stories would be diminished. Recall that the phone records story when first issued back in December registered barely a blip on the radar, but after the NSA wiretap story came out, the phone records story had new significance and cache. These stories build off of one another, and in that sense the Bush administration bears some responsibility in the way that the press and the public respond to new information.
Sphere: Related Content
June 24th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
It is my understanding the certain members of Congress are, and have been, briefed on these programs. They just play dumb once the furor erupts. The NY Times is a national security risk in my opinion.
June 24th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
I’ve seen scant evidence that there are adequate oversight processes in place for these programs, and I don’t consider selective occasional briefings of a handful of members of Congress to constitute “oversight”.
Further, I have lost a great deal of confidence in this administration and find their zeal for inherent powers to be a bit disturbing.
As such, I am thankful for a free press.
June 24th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I do not think this is the behavior we “expect” from the press. Think back to World War II: today’s Times would think nothing of reporting on the Manhattan Project if they caught wind of it. Similarly, if Bill Keller’s crew learned of Operation Overlord’s planning they would not blink an eye before rushing it to the front page the very next day. Damn the war effort. To hell with the lives that could be lost - they need to make their money.
June 24th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Mark,
I don’t see the concrete case that any of these stories have cost any lives.
Nor do I see how these stories are going to lead to life being easier for al Qaeda.
June 25th, 2006 at 2:41 am
Dr. T,
I fully respect your view that an open press in a free society should be able to operate with little to no oversight and no censorship. It helps the checks and balances.
However, as a member of the intelligence community, I can say these types of stories, for whatever the motivation, damage our security effort. Unlike the cold war when the Soviets had American agents with US security clearance, our threat today relies heavily on open source reporting (the newspapers) to learn about how we collect, how we target and what technological methods we use. I have personally seen classified information inadvertently released that had a direct and instant effect of losing valuable collection capability. It is impossible to say how many lives it affected, but it definitely benefited the enemy, not us.
I believe that part of the problem is that we are too soft on government officials or service members who leak this information, that is where the true crime occurs, not with the news agency who publishes it (the NYT and others are ignorant of the amount of damage the leak can cause, nor have they signed a statement of non-disclosure with the government so they are not legally bound).
I know this may ignore the issue you have with the current administration and the perception of their power mongering, but I just wanted to share some perspective of whoever said that the NYT is a security risk. I can see their point.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:33 am
bg,
I will say this: I can see how a free press in general can be a security risk, and how reportage on this topic can lead to problems for the execution of security policy. The problem, of course, becomes, what can and should be done about it.
Part of the problem here, which is neutral to anything to do with the NY Times, the Bush administration or any specific program is that this situation underscores the way that information technology has made keeping secrets very difficult in way that was not the case even twenty years ago.
S