Jeffrey Rosen has a very positive review of Eric Lichtblau's new book,Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice in today's NYT. Among other things, Lichtblau writes of the "titanic battle" between the Times and the Bush Administration over his and James Risen's investigative reporting about the administration's domestic surveillance efforts.
In a series of meetings that lasted 14 months, beginning weeks before the 2004 presidential elections, President Bush and 10 senior advisers made personal appeals to The Times not to run the article. In mid-December 2004 the editors initially decided not to run it because of concerns about national security.
But in the fall of 2005 Mr. Risen told the editors that he was thinking of including the story in his own forthcoming book, and they began to reconsider. It was now clear, Mr. Lichtblau writes, that the administration had lied to The Times in describing the scope of the program and in claiming that administration lawyers unanimously supported it. Mr. Lichtblau’s reporting revealed that there were deep divisions about the program’s legality at the highest levels of the administration. And when Mr. Lichtblau learned that administration officials had discussed seeking an injunction against The Times, just as President Richard M. Nixon had tried to enjoin the publication of the Pentagon Papers, the Nixonian tactic helped seal The Times’s decision to publish the article and to post it first on the Web, so that the presses literally couldn’t be stopped.
Mr. Lichtblau argues that the administration’s national security arguments were overblown. The government had already pledged to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda, he notes. Therefore it wasn’t news to anyone that it was making good on the pledge; the news was that it was refusing to get court orders to do so, despite President Bush’s public claims to the contrary.
Rosen thinks Lichtblau should have engaged the more serious arguments against disclosure, such as those made by Jack Goldsmith, more seriously. Yet he still makes this sound like an exciting and interesting book.
If that's correct, then the Times's decision was quite an easy one, no? As with the Pentagon Papers (quoting the Brennan concurrence here), the Administration claimed that publication of the material "could," or "might," or "may" prejudice the national interest in various ways. But, apparently, it did not "clearly made out its case" to the Times about how the publication of the story would in fact cause great harm to national security.
(Nor, I might add, has Jack Goldsmith offered any such "serious arguments" about how publication seriously harmed national security . . . although, in fairness, he almost certainly cannot do so in a nonclassified setting. I believe Jack's sincerity in claiming that some aspects of the revelations were harmful; but neither I nor the Times has any way to assess whether and to what extent Jack is right.)
Considering the New York Time's exposure of the SWIFT data mining program, as well as the CIA's rendition flights, it is hard to believe that there is any "national security" secret that the Times would keep, if the alternative was the embarrassment of the Bush administration.
Many opponents of the administration, including those writing New York Times editorials, claim the threat from terrorism is vastly overblown. With the mind set that there is nothing to be protected from, it is understandable that there is nothing that could convince them that legitimate "national security" was at risk. Ergo, they publish.
The question at hand is whether the press, or any other actor, should be allowed to make their own decisions about what constitutes a valid national security interest. Examples of engaging in one's own personal foreign policy, vis a vis Israel or Iran, for example, abound. Why take the administration's word on what is or is not in the country's interest?
This points to the real problem--the Bush Administration squandered the trust it had. They lied enough that when they are not believable when they say, "Trust us, you need suppress this because of national security. We're not just trying to avoid political embarrassment."
Good question. Lets put it another way: Should we all be mindless sheep blindly trusting the Holy Word of our President?
I agree. If the Japanese had paid more attention toe US newspapers in WWII the war might have lasted longer.
J's point, that the SWIFT outing had no earthly use to the NYT or the public, especially as compared to its utility while secret, absolutely destroys any other arguments the NYT may have made about any or any other national security issue they leak.
There can be no other conclusion than that the NYT wishes to embarrass the administration and damage the war effort.
If that were not the case, they'd have left SWIFT alone.
And I suppose wanting to damage the war effort and embarrass the administration, or wanting to do the latter at the cost of the former is absolute lunacy. From which we can deduce the Pentagon, State, and intel community have a fair number of loonies. But we knew that.
Marty Lederman posts a comment agreeing that the Bush Administarion is bad.
I never would have expected any of this.
Marty Lederman posts a comment agreeing that the Bush Administarion is bad.
I never would have expected any of this.
Writing the above is certainly much less taxing than discussing the substance of any of it (or, for that matter, than actually reading Lederman's post).
Stories about on-going operations that should be SECRET do appear from time to time in the media, including the NYT, but I think the fault is often with the leaker, not the publisher.
A news outlet weighs a number of factors before publishing anything controversial but one not mentioned here is their subjective likelihood that some other news outlet has the story. I'm sure nothing grates like having a rival get the scoop on a story they have been sitting on for reasons they perceive to be public spirited or based on public responsibility.
If so, they certainly have ample reason for it based on past cases.
Is the argument that they should never have reported it? That seems particularly strange.
Maybe there's a guideline out there of what kind of illegal government activity is really okay?
The first public editor, Daniel Okrent, said the NYT is a solidly liberal paper.
Neither he nor his successor could get answers to certain questions about how the NYT screwed the pooch.
Keller, a couple of years ago, gave a talk apologizing for not stopping the war. As if that's the role of a newspaper. Well, enough of the honchos at the NYT think it is.
Problem is, when they get caught at it.
Only the tortured logic of the looney left would ever be able to suggest that somehow it was in the best interests of the country to make public the procedures by which we spy on terrorists. You may as well be sending Hitler a map of all our troop locations, or telling the British that General Washington is about to attack where they don't expect him.
I do agree that the person who leaks the information should bear more of the blame, but of course the media has been griping about how tight-lipped this administration is since the day they took over the White House, so they are clearly soliciting breaches of security for their own commercial and political purposes.
Without oversight, how can we be sure that they were spying on terrorists?
I believe cjwynes has confused The Pentagon Papers with either the Ellsburg psychiatrist break-in or the Enemies List files that the Washington Post tried to FOIA in Abrahamson v. FBI.
Hmmm. So the Bush Administration says they are spying on terrorists and we're just supposed to accept that? This would be the same Bush administration that said if you're not with us (against the terrorists) you're against us (and with the terrorists). Gee, why would anyone suspect that someone with that world view might not have a clear distinction of who the terrorists are vs. who his domestic political rivals are? Republicans were fond of saying elections have consequences. So does rhetoric, especially when you act on that rhetoric in other realms.
Attack the Bush Administration for prosecuting medical marijuana stores or porn producers, and I'm with you all the way. But not for using every legal method to stop terrorist plots from coming to fruition. The FBI and CIA are not the League of Superfriends, with the Riddler providing useful exposition while our heroes are tied to a chair. This not CSI: District of Columbia where plots get exposed by the hero in 52 minutes. Our intelligence agencies are staffed by human beings who need every program possible to sift out the terrorist signal from the surrounding noise.
It's been 6.5 years and it's clear the NYTs has forgotten the lessons of 9/11 and is advocating politically correct "law enforcement" tactics against an enemy that has declared war on this country.
As a reminder:
Note the date and note that what they were advocating went way beyond the SWIFT program.
Of course. Even if you like it, it can still be prejudice. I cheerfully admit to prejudice against the president. I think he lies freely, and I have pre-judged that he may lie again.
Substance?
The main post is about a review. Adler said it was a "very positive review" and Rosen "makes this sound like an exciting and interesting book". My comment merely pointed out that one would expect a favorable review condidering the 1. writer of the review 2. the occupation of the author of the book and 3. the venue of the review.
Reading the actual review confirms all my assumptions.
I read Lederman btw. I stand by my characterization of his comment. Perhaps I should have said
"Marty Lederman posts a comment agreeing that the Bush Administration is bad except for guys I actually know and kinda like despite their service to a evil regime."
Happier?
Then it should be easy for you to quote the relevant clause.
That's the understatement of the year.
You must be pretty confident in the security situation. 'cause if we get hit, you look bad.
Problem is, as everybody, including you, knows, this is a world-wide issue and terrorists can hit anywhere. We'd sure like to be able to give, say, Algeria a heads-up before some maniacs come out of the desert and massacre another village. Wouldn't we?
Or let Germany know something smelly might be in line for a subway?
Or give them, at least, a thread to follow.
The surveillance program was approved by a FISA review court (you can Google your own news stories on this, I'm tired of feeding pap to petulant babies), and the four leaders of the congressional Intelligence oversight committees (Rockefeller, Harmon, and two Repubs I don't remember off hand) were briefed. Rockefeller wrote a letter of objection that he then stuck into his drawer.
If you object to lack of a full congressional brief, Google "Leaky Leahy" for the reason it wasn't done.
Of all the arguments against the program, claiming a lack of oversight simply isn't justified by the facts. But the lack of facts hasn't stopped people so far, so have at it.
The Kaiser, Imperial Japan, Hitler, and the USSR; those were real enemies in real wars, weren't they?
Question -- how many civilians in the Continental US were killed (in total) by those enemies? Somewhere in the vicinity of 6. Perhaps there were a few more killed during WWI, WWII, and WWIII in espionage operations here. Meanwhile, our current enemies have killed somewhere in the vicinity of 3000. Sounds 'real' to me.
Were the Congressional committees ignorant of SWIFT? Does oversight demand revealing the details to the enemy? If so, why?
Who knew comparisons of relative threat were so easy!
So now we've moved from giving the President all the tools he needs to prevent attacks on the United States, which includes keeping we the people ignorant of illegal activities, to keeping we the people ignorant of illegal activities so that we can prevent maniacs from massacring a village in Algeria? I am emphatically not an isolationist, but I emphatically do demand my civil liberties, and the freedom of the press, be protected for more than Algerian villages. Sorry, Algeria.
Smokey, you need to get your memory checked. Recall someone named Judith Miller who was such a cheerleader for the war that she didn't fact check her sources. As I seriously doubt you've done. If you have, please post.
"The NYT positively revels in giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
I rather disagree with this. I believe the NYT (and, indeed, most media) delight in giving aid and comfort to the reader - who is aided by information that supports his existing worldview, and comforted by opinion that complies with it.
That worldview is, in broad and necessarily inaccurate strokes, sadness and dismay for the liberal... but anger and outrage for the conservative. Both believe that everything is going to hell, so bad news is overemphasised. Liberals are told that the heartless conservatives are doing terrible things instead of making progress, while conservatives are told that the bleeding-heart liberals are whinging incessantly and preventing them from making real progress.
Meanwhile, progress isn't being made because too many liberals AND conservatives are getting all worked up about how those damned other people won't let them make any progress. Trouble is, the other people that ought to be blamed are the media, not the opposing political camp.
huh?
A parallel: Bernanke and the Federal Reserve are breaking rules of long standing. Financial irresponsibility, especially but not exclusively at Bear Stearns, is being condoned/rewarded. Why? because Bernanke (and a lot of other people) realizes that not breaking the rules increases the risks of a financial calamity.... maybe the financial equivalent of 9/11. Better to break the rules.
Sometimes rules have to be broken. They were written a long time ago.
The consequences of another attack, which is surely coming, does not bear calm contemplation. The awful responsibility of postponing the next attack deserves understanding and, I think, the formulation of a new legal framework for domestic security.
Any postponement of another 9/11 extends the period when we can debate the niceties of civil liberties and privacy. Could the Bill of Rights survive another 9/11? I hope we do not have to answer that but, in the meantime, I hope web eavesdropping and phone taps continue.
WWI - Germany, Austria, & Turkey vs. lots of other people.
WWII - Germany, Italy, & Japan vs. lots of other people.
WWIII - The Commies vs. lots of other people. AKA the Cold War.
WWIV - The Dar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام) (the House of Submission) vs. Dar al-Harb (the House of War).
The Dar al-Harb is us. Or some of us anyway. Great name. We do practice it a bit more efficiently than the opposition.
WWIV - The Dar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام) (the House of Submission) vs. Dar al-Harb (the House of War).
It's good to know people on the right practice revisionist history too. i guess they can no longer claim only the left is guilty of that.
and if you're going to claim the "war on terror" as WWIV, shouldn't it technically be WWV with the "war on drugs" as WWIV?
What was the reward for Bear Stearns? BSC traded at $10 in 1991. Since then it gradually increased to $170 at the beginning of 2007. Stock holders will now get $10. The firm will disappear. How is their conduct being condoned? How is it being rewarded?
Excellent, because as every right-thinking person knows, if you aren't a mindless, blind sheep then you MUST leak details on how terrorists are being found.
Further, you must understand that the Iraqi stringers and anonymous sources that the NYT relies on for its news are sacred, unlike the vile "Holy Words" of Bush.
Yeah, you've got your priorities straight.
I kind of figured that out with Judith Miller's reporting.
I more or less trust Bush in this case, as much because he's too much of a bumbler to keep anything really evil secret as because he's not evil (as politicians go), but we've had at least three really evil Presidents in my lifetime (LBJ, Nixon, Bill Clintom), one whose incredibly wide blind spots leads to him frequently endorsing real evils (Carter), and I don't see any of our three leading Presidential candidates this year as being any better.
Swift isn't illegal. It is helpful to the Bush administration's efforts against terror, whidh is probably worse.
And what we give to, say, Algeria, is not for free. We'd like some intel back.
It's how it works outside the nursery.
Had BSC gone into bankrupcy proceedings I would guess we would have had a really wicked panic in everything, not just financials. Nobody knows how bad it would have been but my guess is that everything except for FDIC insured deposits would have taken a huge loss. Treasuries might have done OK.
If I had owned BSC before that weekend I think I would be very thankful to get the $10 but your point is understood. The Fed condoned and rewarded us all, not just BSC holders.
Nice point. Too many of these posts (mine included) boil down to "whose judgment on secrecy do you trust more, the NYT's or Bush and Cheney's?"
We should also ask whether the Wall Street Journal's Op/Ed page should be required to trust the judgment of President Hillary Clinton as to whether disclosure of a particular secret would damage national security or just embarrass her.
Part of the price/benefit of a free press is that the WSJ gets to make that choice just like the NYT does.
No one is going to blame the NYT for the next 9/11. They will (appropriately) blame Bush or his successor. That makes for a huge difference in the calculation of risk.
9/12/2001 - The President authorizes the NSA to devise an interception program to best counter Al Qaeda and to start it immediately.
9/26/2001 - The NSA reports back on the TSP and the operational details.
10/1/2001 - The OLC concludes that the TSP violates FISA but authorizes it to continue for 100 days on a temporary basis based on compelling exigence.
10/8/2001 - The President asks Congress to amend FISA to bring the TSP into compliance. Congress crafts a new FISA, appropriate for situation at hand.
1/8/2001 - The President signs a new FISA bill, the TSP continues legally, the GWOT is not imperiled, the rules of law prevails.
This is not "ignoring the rules", it's acknowledging that, if the rules are wrong you can set them aside temporarily but that, ultimately, you must go to the authority (Congress, in this case) and ask them to change the rules.
Pure fantasy, I know.
You don't spend much time in the conservative blogosphere, do you?
I read Lederman btw. I stand by my characterization of his comment. Perhaps I should have said
"Marty Lederman posts a comment agreeing that the Bush Administration is bad except for guys I actually know and kinda like despite their service to a evil regime."
Happier?
You can't read. Lederman's comment says the Administration hasn't provided support for "bald claims" it has made. That's all.