The New York Times Blowback

 

Both New York Times editor Bill Keller and Los Angeles Times editor Dean Baquet are just beginning to realize what a devastating effect their story had on their respective reputations with the public at large.

Hugh Hewitt asked Larry Kudlow a couple of days ago, about the impact of "their decisions to publish classified information that helps terrorists elude capture on the companies' brand and economic health. He replied":

Killed 'em. Killed 'em. You cannot believe the intensity of anti-New York Times feeling. Killed 'em. You know, we sent a guy, Cody Willard, who's a contributor to our program, and we do this little cam thing. He goes out and interviews people on the street, and I had him ask the question about the Times. People are furious. We did a poll, investor class poll on it, and people were just...80/20 against the New York Times.

It is a typical story of wanting to have your cake and eat it. It was either a great story about an abuse of power by the Administration or it was old news. Well, which was it? Eric Lichtblau repeatedly states on every show (watch him get slammed here by Hugh Hewitt on CNN's 'Reliable Sources', courtesy of Ian Schwartz), and in print, that this is old news and that everyone knew about it. Has he forgotten, or does he simply ignore that in his own original story he claimed that not even the CIA knew about this program pre-9/11, and that it was hidden and secret as well as classified.

Well it is certainly now one anti-terrorist program which will never catch an important terrorists ever again, and it's all because a newspaper said they think it's in the public interest. Yeah right. So as if to say the only secrets we won't publish are the boring ones. The interesting ones, we feel free, even obliged to bring to public attention.

The President, the Vice President, Democratic members of Congress, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, all who have more information on intelligence than any journalists at the NYT, say otherwise, but they just keep repeating the mantra how this was old news. So fine, if it was, where is the story? A legal program, no abuses, ongoing intelligence operations which were proved to be successful in the past in progress, no reason whatsoever to run and trumpet the story.

The American public are not happy with the possible damage this has caused our national security, and we know that the New York Times knows it, otherwise they would not be back-pedaling and bending over backwards writing numerous editorials after the fact, to excuse their actions. The latest joint explanation from the two respective editors is no more than a combination of throat-clearing platitudes, and remembrance of things past. They even call it 'When do we publish a secret?'. Er, I thought it wasn't a secret, (except for the members of Congress of course) after all it has been their joint position that every terrorist already knew about it, and so did the public at large. Their trumpeters have been playing this melody over and over again.

Neither however are more than a simple way to escape responsibility for an egregious act, which has proven to interrupt at least three known ongoing SWIFT investigations, according to the American Spectator, who have thoroughly invalidated the claims that the information revealed was common knowledge (h/t one of my editors at NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard) To make matters worse they were made aware of these investigations in the discussions taking place immediately prior to publishing the story, and chose to ignore them

According to Treasury and Justice Department officials familiar with the briefings their senior leadership undertook with editors and reporters from the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the media outlets were told that their reports on the SWIFT financial tracking system presented risks for three ongoing terrorism financing investigations. Despite this information, both papers chose to move forward with their stories.

"We didn't give them specifics, just general information about regions where the investigations were ongoing, terrorist organizations that we believed were being assisted. These were off the record meetings set up to dissuade them from reporting on SWIFT, and we thought the pressing nature of the investigations might sway them, but they didn't," says a Treasury official.

In the briefings, Treasury and Justice Department officials laid out the challenges law enforcement and intelligence agencies have had with the traditional and still popular hawala Muslim "banking" system, which is dependent more on interpersonal dealings than on institutions and has been prevalent in parts of the world that doesn't understand the Islamic rules. "Since 9/11 we've gotten a lot better at monitoring hawalas," says a Justice Department official. "That success has forced a lot of the money into the institutional or more traditional banking systems. And that's where SWIFT has been particularly helpful."

"We thought that once the reporters and editors understood that one, these were not warrantless searches, and two, that this was a successful program that had netted real bad guys, and three, that it was a program that was helping us with current, ongoing cases, they would agree to hold off or just not do a story," says the U.S. Treasury official. "But it became clear that nothing we said was going sway them. Whomever they were talking to, whoever was leaking the stuff, had them sold on this story."

I am glad that the public at large has taken this matter very seriously and that public opinion has decided that the Administration needs to take a firm stand and bring the press to accountability when revealing classified information. Whilst we may not have the satisfaction of seeing Keller or Baquet take responsibility for their actions, we may at least be comforted in the knowledge that their treacherous act in time of war shall not go unpunished, at least not by their own readers.

Motivated only by a combination of greed and Bush hatred, reaching dizzying new heights in journalistic and civic contempt, the traditions of our nation and their once proud heritage fall by the wayside. It seems that the left media really do hate the President more than they fear al-Qaeda, relentlessly and repeatedly working for the enemy's detestable cause.

In stark contrast, I discovered this wonderful front page editorial from The Chicago Daily Tribune, 10th December 1941, entitled 'We are at war', reminding us of an era of journalism sadly gone by. It begins:

In war there is only one place of honor and that is in the armed services. It is in recognition of that fact that the recruiting stations have been thronged these last few days with young men whose sense of duty will not permit them to wait until they are called. They know where they belong when their country is in peril.

Ah, it brings tears to my eyes. There goes a front page we will never see again in today's world of disgraceful journalism....

UPDATE: David Foster reminds me that even The Chicago Daily Tribune is not immune to treacherous activities.

UPDATE II: Don't miss reading the transcript from Hugh Hewitt's interview with Andy McCarthy, discussing Richard Clark's op-ed defending the NYT:

But the argument that he makes is just preposterous. Obviously, there's a big difference between saying we're trying to track down terrorist financing, which admittedly, everybody knows, and telling them precisely how we're doing it, and that we have a central communications hub, and that we have a sort of seamless relationship with friendly countries, that tells terrorists that to the extent that they've been trying to break down transactions in the hope that by doing them in piecemeal fashion, maybe they can conceal the fact that money is going from a point of origin to a point of destination, that that doesn't work anymore. To tell them that much more important than seizing money, which they may have thought up until now was our priority, we've actually been focusing our attention mainly on tracking and mapping terrorist organization, so that to the extent...if people had been moving money, say, through a shell entity for two years, and had assumed that it was a safe entity, because they figure we're stupid, and if we actually had terrorist money, we would have seized it and people would have been arrested. Now they know that what we've actually been trying to do is map the tentacles of the terrorist organization, which is how you do an investigation. So I just don't get where he's coming from.[...]

I read news yesterday out of Belgium, that suddenly, the Belgian government is conducting a major investigation to see if European and Belgian laws have been violated, and a Belgian privacy organization is marching into court, in a European court, to press to see if any European privacy laws have been violated. Awfully strange to me, if this is old news that everybody's known for four years, that all of a sudden, now, everybody is hopping to and taking action. Remarkable.

Comments

[Kenny Pierce]

Epaminondas,

I told somebody the other day that watching the Republicans and Democrats go at it is like watching two prize-fighters who have both been paid off to throw the match -- each side behaves as though it is absolutely desperate to lose to the other side. I've never seen anything like it.

[Michael van der Galien]

Epamondinas: I agree completely with you. Yet again American left shows why it's not able to beat the Republicans. I'm beginning to get the feeling that the Republicans will win the 08 Presidential elections.

The Democrats will only have themselves to 'thank' for that.

The NY Times: I don't know what the heck they're doing. It's almost as if they want everyone to hate them.

[jess1dering]

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11706...
Check out Al Jazeera quoting the New York Times assessment of the situation in Ramadi. Believe me, the terrorists would be hard pressed to find a better friend than the Times.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Ghost Dansing, as usual you are dead wrong.

First, if the free press watches the government, who watches the press? We do. Which is exactly what just happened with the NYT. They goofed, and we slapped them down, as is proper.

More to the point, since when is some idiot in a black robe versed in the intricacies of modern anti-terrorism espionage? I hate to break it to you, but there used to be a time when a judge, say, could reasonably expect to know almost all there was to know about the society he lived in. Not so any more. (Similarly in the field of mathematics, for example. I think Gauss was the last mathematician to actually know all of the mathematics of his day.) So the SCOTUS is simply no longer equipped to make effective national security decisions, as indeed their ruling on Hamdan has shown.

By the way, I think freedom of the press is working fine. Let the journalists publish, and if they act like seditious morons, let the public punish them all to hell, as is happening now. But I've found journalists hate being caught out, and will cry foul when you expose their lies or deceit. Funny how the press love to dish it out, but can't take it.

[jess1dering]

"Once again unfortunately, it appears the goals of modern Republicanism, and the goals of Islamic extremists are in alignment."
Hmmmmmmmm.......do you mean goals like these?
Goal#1- exterminate the infidels.
Goal#2- lie and misrepresent as often as necessary in order to advance goal #1
Goal #3- use the media as a precision tool as often as possible in order to advance goal #2
................................................
I think you've confused modern Republicanism with the Rabidly Liberal Left. And who is the infidel?? Anyone who doesn't agree with THEIR world view. I don't think the Founders could envision the bunch of "whores-for-prestige and political power" that we have working in that "Fourth Institution" these days. Lemmings look like radical individualists compared to most of the present-day MSM.
P.S. The terrorists have a best friend in this administration.? That comment reminds me of an on-line site called "Blame Bush". It's funny. No matter who does what on the planet if there's blame to be ascribed .....well you get it.
But don't you think that really, the New York Times is a MUCH better friend to terrorism than George W could ever be.? Really....

[epaminondas]

"Once again unfortunately, it appears the goals of modern Republicanism, and the goals of Islamic extremists are in alignment."

File under, why the the opposition to republicans always lose.
How completely pathetic to ascribe to the people charged with our protection the same motives as those who slaughtered and incinerated 3000 out of a clear blue sky.

This utterly contemptible stupidity is why in the last week, after 35 years, I left the democratic party.

If the opposition to the republicans could control themselves, and HAD a central philosphy other than to say BUSHTILER=AL QAEDA, the republican party would be squashed. But instead, we have this trash.

How utterly pathetic. Truman, and FDR are SPINNING in their graves.

[Ghost Dansing]

Allowing this Republican administration to undercut Freedom of the Press in the United States would be a breathtaking victory for the terrorists and extremists that are attacking our Nation.

The espionage statute was not designed to attack Freedom of the Press...if the statute is used to challenge the press it will certainly fail in this case, and WILL run into problems with the First Amendment.

The founders of the United States enacted the First Amendment to distinguish their new government from that of England, which had long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart explained in a 1974 speech, the "primary purpose" of the First Amendment was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches" (the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary).

Once again unfortunately, it appears the goals of modern Republicanism, and the goals of Islamic extremists are in alignment.

In many ways, this Republican adminstration is the best friend the terrorists ever had...incompetent in foreign affairs, incompetent domestically...willing to sacrifice America's cherished institutions in capitulation to fear.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. Textually, it prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that:

Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion (the "Establishment Clause");
Prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause");
Infringe the freedom of speech;
Infringe the freedom of the press;
Limit the right to assemble peaceably;
Limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment only explicitly disallows any of the rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress, but as the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all law-making ("legislative") authority to Congress, the courts have held that this extends to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the limitations of the First Amendment to also restrict the states.

[epaminondas]

Neither the Chicago Tribune in 1942, NOR the NYT deserve respect in these cases.

This is NOT a freedom of speech issue.
This is an issue about alerting the enemy to security measures secretly enacted.

No one anywhere claimed that SWIFT was watching how Schumer and Rahm Emanuel are shitfing funds around for the upcoming elections. No one anywhere claimed that SWIFT was giving up information about James Webb's campaign money moves. No one anywhere claimed this was in ANY WAY against the law, or claimed any cases of actual abuse.

Why then should either of these papers have done what they did?

The answers in 1942 and 2006 are identical.

The extreme isolationist Trubune felt FDR had led us into a war which could have been avoided, and was responsible for letting Pearl Harbor happen. They let their political wishes, and philosphical doctrine influence them to place our men and women defending the nation in danger to 'alert' the people and 'serve' the public interest.

The NYT feels the the administration is more of a threat to the nation than the salafi and Khomeinst freaks out there. Because of this judgment, they INCREASED the danger to the citizens of the USA. No matter what argument can be made that some people 'knew' about such a program, EVERYONE knows now. EVERYONE.

Frankly I believe the AG should warn publishers and editors that a repeat of this kind will bring action against them. No prior restraint, but accountability after. I also think the BOOK should be thrown at the leakers NOW.

The time has also come to look at boycotting those firms who advertise in the NYT now. The NYT WILL BOW to economic pressure. If the Sulzbergers don't want to accede to the wishes of the public, let them sell.

Again, this is not an issue of freedom of speech - this is an issue of press responsibility, and editorial and publisher care about the NATIONAL INTEREST as VOTED by the american people (their customers). They simply do not have RIGHT to arrogate to themselves trumpeting national security issues in secret to the public just on their judgement. The Chicago Tribune did not have that right after the Battle of Midway, and the NYT does not have that right today. They are unelected businessmen, no diffrerent from the CEO of Halliburton.

If Keller and Sulzberger don't like the way things are, let them run for office as a certain Halliburton exec did. Then, they have the RIGHT to reveal whatever they like.

If they want to publish what they arrogate to themselves 'serves the public interest', but damages the public safety in the judgement of those WE ELECT, they should then be PROUD to serve their time in acts of supreme civil disobedience. If nothing else, they'll get a bestseller.

[Alexandra]

Thanks David, I've updated in the main text.

[Alexandra]

Randal,

It would be helpful if you decide to play the role of another "trumpeter", you would check the links in my text before you comment. I already linked to this 'fountain of valuable information' @ Crooks & Liars in my main text, under the last "over again".

Er, I thought it wasn't a secret, after all it has been their joint position that every terrorist already knew about it, and so did the public at large. Their trumpeters have been playing this melody over and over again.

[nofate]

Ghost Dansing says:
"The First Amendment and other legal doctrines, the court said, protect the right to publish even these highly classified documents -- unless, as Justice Potter Stewart put it, publication would ''surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our nation or its people.''

So it was judges who saved this country from the repressive spirit that prevails in so many others. The Pentagon Papers case stands today as a barrier to silence by official edict.

Freedom and freedom of the press were birth twins of the revolution. They grew up together, and neither has fared well without the other...."

So, I suppose, "incidents" like the World Trade Center (that was 9-11, remember?) don't count as "immediate and irreparable damage to our nation or its people"? Maybe it will take a dirty bomb or a subway gassing killing many thousands to fit the category you and Justice Stewart have in mind? Will it take 5,000 lives? 10,000? What is the cost of "immediate and irreparable"?

"So it was judges who saved this country from the repressive spirit that prevails in so many others" and you think these judges are going to save us from alQaeda and all the islamofascists they sponsor? Too bad they weren't around in WWII when that despot Roosevelt put the kabosh on the Chicago paper that told the world about us SECRETLY (oh, my God!) reading Japanese communications because we broke their code. Thank God they are here today to protect us from the reprssive schemes of Bush & Cheney, and also to allow the alQaeda members at Club Gitmo to receive fair trials under the American system of justice. AlQaeda itself could never be that repressive right?

People like you, who see George Bush looking over your shoulder wanting to know your secrets, but not caring a wit about the long term survival of this country, just don't seem to get it. These guys want to kill you, your children, your mother, father, sisters, brothers, the judges, and the reporters. They will lay waste to the entire country, if necessary, to achieve their goals. They love your freedom of the press as much as you do, because it gives them information for free. The freedom you say goes hand in hand with freedom of the press will disappear and be only a memory in the minds of the survivors. There may not be freedom of the press without freedom, but there will damn well not be any freedom without a few well kept secrets implemented by people with more guts and a lot less need for the spotlight than Potter Stewart and the other 5 idiots in black that wrote that decision.

[jess1dering]

It is an absolute joy to watch the New York Times reap what they have sown. It is embarrassing to watch the liars inability to keep their lies straight.
I am still ( as everyone knows by now ) outraged by their misrepresentation of Cpl. Jeffrey Star. He gave his life for this country and felt honored to do it. In my eyes, a hero.
The New York Times edited all of the courage and gratitude and nobility that that young man expressed in his last letter home and used him in a clearly anti-war piece. In my eyes, a filthy rag.

[david foster]

Alexandra...the Chicago Daily Tribune needs to go on the "hypocrites" list. This is the same publication that published information which could have clued the Japanese that we had broken their codes. Details here.

Also, before the war, this same newspaper chose to run leaked information about the Victory Plan, which was the overall production and logistics plan for the US armed forces. This was probably done because of the isolationist leanings of their publisher.

[david foster]

Ghost Dansing...there is an explicit statute forbidding the publication of information dealing with communications intercepts. reference here. This is not a First Amendment issue.

Would you argue that it's OK for a newspaper to publish, say, the complete software and schematics for the Trident II missile guidance system? If not, you must admit that there are certain things whose publication may be prohibited without infringing freedom of the press.

[Ghost Dansing]

One might wonder why modern Republicanism has such animosity for the Courts of this Nation, and the Free Press.

On June 13, 1971 The New York Times began publishing a series on the secret official history of the Vietnam War that became known as the Pentagon Papers. That afternoon President Nixon spoke on the telephone with Dr. Kissinger, his national security adviser. The conversation has now been declassified, and published by the National Security Archive.

''It's treasonable, there's no question,'' Dr. Kissinger said. ''It's actionable, I'm absolutely certain that this violates all sorts of security laws.''

Dr. Kissinger suggested that he talk with the attorney general, John Mitchell. President Nixon agreed. Two days later Mr. Mitchell asked the courts to bar further publication of the Times series.

An extraordinary legal struggle followed. It ended 15 days later, when the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6 to 3, rejected the Nixon administration's claim.

The First Amendment and other legal doctrines, the court said, protect the right to publish even these highly classified documents -- unless, as Justice Potter Stewart put it, publication would ''surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our nation or its people.''

So it was judges who saved this country from the repressive spirit that prevails in so many others. The Pentagon Papers case stands today as a barrier to silence by official edict.

Freedom and freedom of the press were birth twins of the revolution. They grew up together, and neither has fared well without the other.

Journalism has risen to great occasions and even made other freedoms possible. From editors who went defiantly to prison after being charged under the sedition act for circulating opinions that questioned the motives of Congress, or 'criminating' (whatever that meant) the president, to the willingness of Arthur Sulzberger and Katherine Graham to risk criminal prosecution under espionage laws if they printed the Pentagon Papers; from Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair taking on the shame of the cities, the crimes of the trusts, and the treason of the senate, to Walter Cronkite devoting an entire broadcast to Watergate; from Seymour Hersh reporting on torture to 60 Minutes II broadcasting the horror of Abu Ghraib, the greatest moments in journalism have come not when journalists made common cause with power, but when they stood fearlessly independent of it.

Are we still the "Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave"? Do we fear Freedom more than we fear Terrorists? It would appear so...this Republican administration has been singularly ineffective against terrorists after a number of years. They have, however been strident in their work to undermine Constitutional guarantees for Americans.

[Ghost Dansing]

In 1990 the press celebrated its 300th anniversary as an American institution.

The first newspaper in the colonies, Publick Occurrences: Both Foreign and Domestick, lasted only one day in 1690 before British officials suppressed it. But other papers sprang up, and by the 1730s the colonial press was strong enough to criticize British governors. In 1734 the governor of New York charged John Peter Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, with seditious libel.

Zenger's lawyer, a treasonous clown by the name of Alexander Hamilton, argued that "the truth of the facts" was reason enough to print a story. In a decision bolstering freedom of the press, the jury acquitted Zenger.

The First Amendment and the Liberal political philosophy behind it have allowed the American media extraordinary freedom in reporting the news and expressing opinions. In the 1970s, American reporters uncovered the Watergate scandal, which ended with the resignation of President Richard Nixon, and American newspapers printed the "Pentagon papers," classified documents related to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Press reports of official corruption that in some countries would bring arrests and the shutdown of newspapers are made freely in the United States, where the media cannot be shut down, where government itself cannot be libeled, and where public officials must prove that a statement is not only false but was made with actual malice before they can recover damages.

"My country will stand by Georgian leaders who respect minority rights and work to peacefully unify their country, and grow closer to the free nations in Europe. We're also committed to democratic progress in Moldova, where leaders have pledged to expand freedom of the press, to protect minority rights, and to make government institutions more accountable." George W. Bush, President of the United States, The Small Guild Hall, Riga, Latvia, 7 May 2005

Even while Dubya and his Republican administration...and its supporters...attack freedom of the press and other citizen's rights at home. What a guy.

The Republicans Party have traditionally run into conflict with the Liberal Constitution of the United States of America, and even so, have been allowed to continue as an active political party...they owe their existence to Liberalism.

[Randal]

What secret?

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_ko_nyt_swift_leak_060628a_240x180.mov

Or do you want Pres. Bush punished for blabbing too? And Swift for the web site and magazine?

[Jeremayakovka]

G'day, Alexandra and other fine ATB readers.

David's blog at FPM today features a letter to the Gray Lady from an American officer in the field:

You may think you have done a public service, but you have
gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and
innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next
time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had
you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a
federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an
infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this
story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my
colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers
here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law.
By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at
the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,

Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq