Excuses From The Editor
Bill Keller, editor of that fine bird cage liner known as The New York Times, wrote a letter on his decision to publish classified information about the governments efforts to curtail terrorist funding.
Wizbang gives you the Reader's Digest version:
Dear Reader:
1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.
2) We believe it was effective at catching terrorists.
3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.
Signed,
Bill
Keller
In my humble opinion it's nothing more than self-serving, hypocritical, sanctimonious, and elitist lecturing at it's worst.
Not only does he put himself and the NYT above the law, but above the President, and then claims that it is his duty to know what is best, despite many who tried in vain to convince him otherwise. I am fairly certain that the list of whom can make decisions regarding national security do not include the editor of the New York Times.
It seems more and more that the NYT has chosen sides in the war. Sad to say it isn't ours.
This story in and of itself had no news value. Congressional and judicial oversight were already there. What is the story is that the New York Times was willing to expose and possibly end a perfectly legal and apparently effective spy program. If anyone were to show up at a US banking institution with more than $10,000 for deposit, the bank is required to get positive ID from that person to fill out a Currency Transaction Report that goes right to the government. This has been so since the early 1990's and increasing enforced since 9/11 with the origins going back to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. No doubt there is a hefty database of domestic transactions above $10,000 already owned by the government. So, while banking information isn't public, it sure isn't private and hasn't been for decades.
Awesome "scoop" there NYT! <---Insert sarcasm here. I realize us knuckle-draggers am to un-smart to know what is good for us, but... The bottom line is, that Bill Keller and the NYT took it upon themselves to decide what classified information the public and our enemies should know about. Bizarrely, he claims that the critical factors in his decision were whether the program was legal and had adequate safeguards even though, it was indeed legal and had extensive safeguards in place. Andrew McCarthy may have the real reason this was published... The NYT is just more important than we are.
Wizbang gives you the Reader's Digest version:
Dear Reader:
1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.
2) We believe it was effective at catching terrorists.
3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.
Signed,
Bill
Keller
In my humble opinion it's nothing more than self-serving, hypocritical, sanctimonious, and elitist lecturing at it's worst.
Not only does he put himself and the NYT above the law, but above the President, and then claims that it is his duty to know what is best, despite many who tried in vain to convince him otherwise. I am fairly certain that the list of whom can make decisions regarding national security do not include the editor of the New York Times.
It seems more and more that the NYT has chosen sides in the war. Sad to say it isn't ours.
This story in and of itself had no news value. Congressional and judicial oversight were already there. What is the story is that the New York Times was willing to expose and possibly end a perfectly legal and apparently effective spy program. If anyone were to show up at a US banking institution with more than $10,000 for deposit, the bank is required to get positive ID from that person to fill out a Currency Transaction Report that goes right to the government. This has been so since the early 1990's and increasing enforced since 9/11 with the origins going back to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. No doubt there is a hefty database of domestic transactions above $10,000 already owned by the government. So, while banking information isn't public, it sure isn't private and hasn't been for decades.
Awesome "scoop" there NYT! <---Insert sarcasm here. I realize us knuckle-draggers am to un-smart to know what is good for us, but... The bottom line is, that Bill Keller and the NYT took it upon themselves to decide what classified information the public and our enemies should know about. Bizarrely, he claims that the critical factors in his decision were whether the program was legal and had adequate safeguards even though, it was indeed legal and had extensive safeguards in place. Andrew McCarthy may have the real reason this was published... The NYT is just more important than we are.
posted by Digital Fortress at 12:56
3 Comments:
Representative Peter King (R-NY) is urging Attorney General Gonzalez to bring criminal charges against the New York Times as well as the other news organizations that chose to publish the classified information. King is also the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
The New York Times has, through the publishing of secret government information, given aid to our enemies.
Which is treason.
The freedom of the press and the public's so-called "right to know" do not trump our nation's security, especially in a time of war.
Security classification exists for a reason: to protect America and its citizens. Some of those citizens wear uniforms under arms in direct defense of our nation. Some are civilian citizens and just go to work daily and expect to be able to go home to their families at the close of the business day.
Callous disclosure of classified information is a betrayal to all the citizens of this nation, both liberal and conservative alike. Printing information pertinent to a classified program in an internationally circulated newspaper bears the stain of treason. In regard to last Friday's classified program revelation, without exception, these newspapers and reporters should be brought under the scrutiny of the Justice Department for possible violation of US Code. If found in violation; they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In my estimation, there are no mitigating circumstances that warrant the betrayal of this nation.
Where have you been?
Anyway, under Clinton this program was just fine when we used it to catch tax cheats and drug dealers. The New York Times doesn't care about some potential for abuse, they just want to hurt this administration in any way possible. If hurting GW Bush means that soldiers die, terrorists get stronger and the United States and the civilized world is weaker, so be it.
I agree where is the big "scoop"?
Post a Comment
<< Home