|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
It's a fine line, but freedom of the press does not equal freedom to release classified documents.
|
It is not a "fine line"...there is a clear description of what classified info cannot be released or published by the press; other than those described items and categories, the opposite of what you posted seems more accurate:
In the last bold quotes in this post, Washington Post reporter says that freedom of the press does equal release of classified documents, Seaver. Dana Priest said that the exceptions to this are: <b>"But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can’t publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.
Now why isn’t it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn’t it not a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight,"</b>
Seaver, if you're pressed for time, or only mildly interested, please just read only the bolded and enlarged highlights. It appears that the executive branch and some republicans in congress are singling out the NY Times. The excerpt from the WSJ editorial is "over the top". I think that Time's editor Keller renders the attacks on the Times by pols, pundits, and the WSJ, seem silly and far fetched, because the folks who work for the Times all live in two prime terror target areas....why would they decide to make where they live and work, "less safe", by publishing info that would strengthen an enemy that has already carried out terrorist attacks in those two cities?
The comments in the last quote box, from July 2's "Meet the Press", indicate that the administration has been quite open about this financial surveillance. I'll provide linked references to five or more quotes, that go at least as far back as around 9/11, that prove this.
Seaver, do you simply prefer to let an administration that classifies more documents that it generates, than it leaves unclassified, free to classify everything, and then use that action to keep the press from examining and publishing any document originating from that government branch?
Again...isn't the Times beign scapegoated as a diversion, now that you have been informed that it is legal for the press to publish all but a narrowly defined set of classified info? I highlighted the report that the Times was given the info that it published from more than 20 current or former government officials. If anyone should appropriately be investigated, it is them, not the Times.
....and again, if any country is strong enough militarily to uphold and defend it's free press and all of it's citizens' rights during "war time", wouldn't that country be the U.S. There has been no threat deemed serious enough to reverse tax cuts, or to call for any sacrifice from citizens on the homefront.
There has been no attack or serious plot uncovered to do so, in five years in the U.S. Is the Times doing anymore than attempting to tell us all what it has been told, is happening, as far as decisions of this administration, and since the administration has not shown any evidence that any damage to national security has been done by any news reports, is the official criticism of the Times, fair or accurate? You may not want to know, Seaver, but to me, it is important that I know. The Times knows what classified info it is prohibited from publishing, all information that isn't prohibited should be shared with us promptly. Too many Americans have fought and died to preserve this process, this right. We spend the money for the strongest and best defense....it allows us to err on the side of openness, and to freely criticize what that openness reveals to us about our government. When Cheney attacks a news org that is acting within it's rights, he is attacking my right to know, and by extension, my right to criticize his policies and directives.
Quote:
http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/cli...ller27-ON.html
June 25, 2006
Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report
.....Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.
<b>It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.</b>
The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.
The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.
Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements.
Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.
Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others — national security experts not serving in the Administration — for their counsel. <h3>It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places — New York and the Washington area — that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.</h3>
The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk.....
......A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it.
We weighed most heavily the Administration's concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program.
By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year's reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would — if the public knew what they were doing — withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before. Members of Congress have proposed to amend the law to put the eavesdropping program on a firm legal footing. And the man who presided over it and defended it was handily confirmed for promotion as the head of the CIA.
A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.
I can appreciate that other conscientious people could have gone through the process I've outlined above and come to a different conclusion. But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues.
Thanks for writing.
Regards,
Bill Keller
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/wa...gewanted=print
June 23, 2006
Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.....
......The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.
That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.
"The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling," said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."
The program is separate from the National Security Agency's efforts to eavesdrop without warrants and collect domestic phone records, operations that have provoked fierce public debate and spurred lawsuits against the government and telecommunications companies.
But all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to exploit technological tools to prevent another terrorist strike, and all reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information about Americans and others inside the United States.
Officials described the Swift program as the biggest and most far-reaching of several secret efforts to trace terrorist financing. Much more limited agreements with other companies have provided access to A.T.M. transactions, credit card purchases and Western Union wire payments, the officials said.
<h3>Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified.</h3> Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.....
.....The Bush administration has made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts. Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.
Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
Mr. Levey agreed to discuss the classified operation after the Times editors told him of the newspaper's decision.....
....The Treasury Department was charged by President Bush, in a September 2001 executive order, with taking the lead role in efforts to disrupt terrorist financing. Mr. Bush has been briefed on the program and Vice President Dick Cheney has attended C.I.A. demonstrations, the officials said. The National Security Agency has provided some technical assistance.
While the banking program is a closely held secret, administration officials have held classified briefings for some members of Congress and the Sept. 11 commission, the officials said. More lawmakers were briefed in recent weeks, after the administration learned The Times was making inquiries for this article.....
|
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13615446/
Updated: 1:59 p.m. ET July 2, 2006
MS. MITCHELL: Senator Schumer, on January 1, you said that—about an earlier leak regarding the NSA surveillance...
SEN. SCHUMER: Right.
MS. MITCHELL: ...that “Whenever classified information is leaked, there ought to be an investigation, because it could endanger our security.” So I would presume you now would agree with the president that this leak should also be investigated.
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, it certainly should be investigated, but the president and others have gone way overboard.
MS. MITCHELL: How so?
SEN. SCHUMER: How so? Look, we believe in a free press in this country. The press is often antagonistic or probing of people in power. We all don’t like that, but it’s part of America, and as a founding father said when they first wrote the Constitution, true to this day, that’s a good thing for America.
The—there are exceptions. One is if it harms national security. Now all of these statements by the president and others are jumping the gun. We don’t know if it’s harmed national security. In fact, I’ve been on the Banking Committee for six years. It is broad public knowledge, stated by administration officials...
MS. MITCHELL: Have you been briefed on this?
SEN. SCHUMER: I have not been briefed privately on this program, but we’ve had people come before the Banking Committee, publicly, from Treasury and other departments. And this is—the White House has made statements, others have made statements, that we monitor and track terrorist financing.
MS. MITCHELL: Well...
SEN. SCHUMER: It’s been successful, so that you look at the reports, the terrorists don’t use the banks as much. So to jump out front and just blast a newspaper that they may not like, that, to me, is totally wrong. It’s, it’s the guilty verdict first and then the trial. Mitch—Pat Roberts has called for an investigation, fine, let it be a fair...
MS. MITCHELL: The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. Let it be a fair and down-the-middle investigation. My guess: It will find that national security was not compromised a jot.
MS. MITCHELL: Well, let me pick up on that, because Treasury Secretary Snow took a group of reporters on a trip to Afghanistan and other parts of the world to show off how they were tracking terror financing. So, Senator McConnell, do they want to have it both ways? Do they want to brag about their success record in tracking this financing, and at the same time yell and scream about the reporters when they print the stories?
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, look, I think the leaks are abominable and printing of the leaks is certainly troubling. You can talk in general about what we’re doing without revealing the specifics. And I think we all regret that the, that the Times and other publications chose to do that. And I think the president essentially had it correctly.
MS. MITCHELL: Well, let me show you a joint statement that was on the op-ed pages of both The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times yesterday. The editors of those newspapers wrote, “... the banking articles ... 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.”
After that, in fact, The Wall Street Journal attacked The New York Times on its editorial pages Friday, so this was clearly a response to that, even though the Journal had itself published the same story about terror financing in its news columns, which is separate from its editorial pages. Senator McConnell, has the administration and its conservative supporters now embarked on a calculated campaign to demonize The New York Times and other newspapers, but particularly The New York Times, as a political calculus because it’ll help in the midterm elections?
SEN. McCONNELL: Look, newspapers are very, very important in our, in our country. The media’s important, and we have a free press, but the press is not responsible for our national security. That’s the responsibility of the president and the Department of Defense and the other agencies that look after us. And I think it’s important for the leaders of the principle outlets in the press in this country to be responsible. And I don’t this publishing of this kind of information is helpful, and nor do I think it is necessary in doing their job.
MS. MITCHELL: Senator Schumer?
SEN. SCHUMER: Andrea, let me say a couple of things. First, you asked about a double standard. There clearly is a double standard; it’s with the administration. They leak things they want to leak. And when the Plame leak came out, there was no outrage, there was no high dudgeon. In fact, regardless of the criminal standard which special prosecutor Fitzgerald is handling, it’s clear that there were leaks. There’s been no punishment, no outcry, etc. You can’t have it both ways and use leaks when you want to and don’t use leaks when you don’t.....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13615446/page/4/
.......MS. MITCHELL: And coming next, freedom of the press vs. national security. Our roundtable with radio host and author Bill Bennett, William Safire of The New York Times, Dana Priest of The Washington Post, and John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal. All coming up on MEET THE PRESS.
(Announcements)
MS. MITCHELL: Our round table on balancing press freedoms and national security, after this brief station break.
(Announcements)
MS. MITCHELL: Welcome all.
Well, first the firestorm over leaks. For years the president and the Treasury have been trumpeting their success in following terror money.
So, Bill Bennett, what is the harm in what The New York Times and other newspapers did last week in publishing their stories?
MR. BILL BENNETT: Well, there are a lot of people who are saying there’s a lot of harm. Ask the undersecretary of the Treasury, Stuart Levy, who is very upset about it. Ask the secretary of the Treasury, departing secretary, Secretary Snow. Ask Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission. They’re not exactly Bush camp followers. Tom Kean said in an interview, he said a very successful program, which has been very successful, successful in the war against terror, has been lost, compromised because of this.
MS. MITCHELL: Well, isn’t it true that, in fact, this program was hinted at in the 9/11 commission report, and both NBC analyst Roger Cressey, who is a former national security official, and his fellow former NSC officer Richard Clarke said that no harm was done. Let’s look at what they wrote in The New York Times about this. “Wildly overblown ... are the Bush administration’s protests that the press revelations about the financial monitoring program may tip off the terrorists. ... They want the public to believe that it had not already occurred to every terrorist on the planet that his telephone was probably monitored and his international bank transfers subject to scrutiny. How gullible does the administration take the American citizenry to be?” Bill Safire...
MR. BENNETT: Well...
MS. MITCHELL: ...does the press have an obligation...
MR. BENNETT: ...is that it? Is that it for me?
MS. MITCHELL: No. No. Stand by. I want to ask Bill Safire to weigh in on this.....
.....MS. MITCHELL: But, John, what Bill Bennett would say to you is that they didn’t know about the so-called SWIFT program, they didn’t know the specifics. Bill...
MR. BENNETT: Well, why did they, why did they get caught on 2003 rather than two years earlier when the program was announced? I know we have an air marshals program, but I don’t know which marshal is on which plane. Yeah, we established a democracy, we, we opposed a king, we have a president of the United States. The founders, let me go back 200 years, James Wilson said “The press will be free. No prior restraint on the press. However, when they err, when they are irresponsible, they should be held accountable.” Now, you put Richard Clarke up against Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean. I’m sorry, Richard Clarke has a thing against this administration, that’s pretty clearly known. Tom Kean said a—the details of a valuable program were lost.
MS. MITCHELL: Well, he worked for a while in this administration.
MR. BENNETT: Lee Hamilton said the same thing, Jack Murtha—these, again, are not cat’s paws of this administration—begged The New York Times not to run this piece.
MS. DANA PRIEST: You know, Andrea, the administration...
MS. MITCHELL: Yes, Dana?
MS. PRIEST: Every time there’s a national security story they don’t want published, they say it will damage national security. But they—for one thing, they’ve never given us any proof. They say it will stop cooperation, but the fact is that the countries of the world understand that they have to cooperate on counterterrorism. And just like the banks that did not pull out of the system, other countries continue to cooperate, because it’s a common problem.
MS. MITCHELL: But, Dana...
<b>......MS. MITCHELL: Dana, let me point out that The Washington Post, your newspaper, was behind the others but also did publish this story. And a story you wrote last year disclosing the secret CIA prisons won the Pulitzer Prize, but it also led to William Bennett, sitting here, saying that three reporters who won the Pulitzer Prize—you for that story and Jim Risen and others for another story—were, “not worthy of an award but rather worthy of jail.” Dana, how do you plead?</b>
<h3>MS. PRIEST: Well, it’s not a crime to publish classified information. And this is one of the things Mr. Bennett keeps telling people that it is. But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can’t publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.
Now why isn’t it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn’t it not a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight, and you can’t do that.</h3> Look at the criticism that the press got after Iraq that we did not do our job <b>on WMD. And that was all in a classified arena. To do a better job—and I believe that we should’ve done a better job—we would’ve again, found ourselves in the arena of...</b>
MS. MITCHELL: But, we’ve now had a steady drum beat from the White House all week about this, as you’ve pointed out. Here’s what the president and the vice president have been saying on the stump at campaign events.
(Videotape, Wednesday):
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Last week, the details of this program appeared in the press. There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it, and no excuse for any newspaper to print it.
(End videotape)
(Videotape, Monday):
VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging.
What is doubly disturbing for me is that not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they’ve been rewarded for it—for example, in the case of the terrorist surveillance program—by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalist. I think that is a disgrace.
(End videotape)....
.......MR. BENNETT: Can—may I—can I, can I...
MS. PRIEST: Still, the point is the tension between the media and the government is long-standing. And that’s to be expected. And in fact, all these—many of the people getting up to lambaste the media now are also people that we talk to with our stories, to vet our stories, to say, “What is it in this story that you’re most concerned about?”
MS. MITCHELL: You mean, to hold things back?
MS. PRIEST: To hold things back. In the prison story, we talked with the administration. No one in the administration asked us not to publish the story. In fact, people said, “We know you have your job to do, but please don’t publish the names of the countries where the prisons are located.” So there is a reasoned dialogue that often goes on between the media and the government behind, behind all this.
MS. MITCHELL: That was not the case with the NSA surveillance stories.
MR. BENNETT: That’s correct. Can I say something?
MS. MITCHELL: Please.
MR. BENNETT: Because I’m being quoted and talked about. I’m right here.
You know, I’m right here. I can, I can make my own case.
MS. MITCHELL: Well, please weigh in.
MR. HARWOOD: (Unintelligible)...Bennett
MR. BENNETT: All right, now you’ve got, you’ve got, you’ve got three people on one side, you’ve got me on the other side. Let me just, let me just state my position.
It’s not time to break out the champagne and the Pulitzers. This is not about politics, not from my perspective. It’s about the United States of America and the security of the United States of America. The difference is, the government was elected. People may not like the Bush administration, but they were elected and they are entitled to due consideration on these matters. The American people, in fact, believe in a free press, as I do, and I don’t believe in prior restraint of the press. But the American people are saying, if you listen to them in very, very large and consistent numbers—and an awful lot of people across the board are saying this—is four times now, four times in eight months, Dana Priest’s story, the National Surveillance Security Agency monitoring story, the USA Today story about data mining. “Oh, sorry,” they tell us on Friday, “We maybe got that wrong. Our sources were wrong.”
MS. MITCHELL: Well, wait a second, the story wasn’t wrong. The—what they apologized for is that one of the companies, or two of the companies...
MR. BENNETT: Two of the companies.
MS. MITCHELL: ...did not have contracts.
MR. BENNETT: Big, big part of the story.
MS. MITCHELL: But that the—but that the information...
MS. PRIEST: Yeah.
MS. MITCHELL: ...was still being...
MS. PRIEST: The program was still valid.
MR. BENNETT: But they—a big part of the story...
MS. MITCHELL: But the fundamental part of the story was...
MR. BENNETT: ...big—big—big part of the story they got wrong. All right, check your facts when you’re running a front page...
MS. MITCHELL: I have.
MR. BENNETT: ...when they’re running front page, USA Today needs to check its facts. And now, and now, and now this story on the SWIFT. And now people are saying, is there a competition here?
MS. MITCHELL: Which no one has denied.
MR. BENNETT: No, no one has denied it except the people at Treasury and again, Tom Kean, are saying this thing has now destroyed the capacity of our program. Again, the difference is the government of the United States was elected to protect our security. It isn’t always in the service of security to leak. Katharine Graham, in The New York Times today, Katharine Graham cites a very interesting example in 1983 where she said the press went too far. It reported about secret communications between Syrian terrorists and their Iranian—their Iranian bosses, which led later, she said, to the deaths of 240 Marines. This can happen. We are in war. This is classified...
MS. PRIEST: You know, I heartily appreciate your talking on behalf of all the American people because when...
MR. BENNETT: ...it’s—it’s not—I’m not. I’m talking about a lot of the American—wait, let me finish. Let me finish.
MS. PRIEST: ...my stories ran I received several—many, many people thanking me because they thought that they went—including...
MR. BENNETT: You don’t want to be—you don’t, you don’t want to put this to an opinion poll.
MS. PRIEST: ...including four-star...
MR. BENNETT: You do not want to do this on an opinion poll.
MS. PRIEST: ...including active-duty four-star generals.
MR. BENNETT: Can I, can I just...
MS. PRIEST: Some people think that the administration has gone too far in some of the counterterrorism measures they’ve taken, and that some of the things that we were—are revealing are creating a debate that could not have happened before.
MR. BENNETT: Yeah, and the shutting down of prisons......
......MR. BENNETT: ...and countries that say...
MS. PRIEST: The prisons have been moved. They have not been shut down.
That’s a big difference.
MR. BENNETT: That’s a different.....
MS. MITCHELL: Bill Safire, weigh in here.
MR. SAFIRE: Let me respond to what Bill, to the point he’s making, that who elected the media to determine what should be secret and what should not?
MS. MITCHELL: Which is the fundamental point.
MR. SAFIRE: Right. And the answer to that is, the founding fathers did. They came up with this Bill of Rights beyond which the constitutional convention would not move unless there were a First Amendment to challenge the government...
MR. BENNETT: Right.
MR. SAFIRE: ...just as the American founding fathers challenged the British government. Now it’s not treasonable, it’s not even wrong for the press to say we’re going to find out what we can and we’ll act as a check and balance on the government. Sometimes we’ll make mistakes. Sometimes the government will mistake.
MR. BENNETT: Is it wrong for the government to go after the press when the press has gone too far?
MR. SAFIRE: Sometimes we—sometimes even the Supreme Court admits to making mistakes.
MR. BENNETT: Can—should the press be held responsible if it’s going too far?
MR. HARWOOD: (Unintelligible)...about public opinion.
MR. BENNETT: Should the press be held responsible if it’s gone too far?
MS. MITCHELL: John Harwood:
MR. SAFIRE: Free speech helps everybody.
MR. BENNETT: Judy Miller went to jail for 85 days.
MR. HARWOOD: Now, let me...(unintelligible).
MR. BENNETT: And there was not a big hue and cry about that, was there?
MS. MITCHELL: (Unintelligible).
MR. SAFIRE: There sure was for a moment.
MR. HARWOOD: Let me...(Unintelligible)...just for a moment.
MR. BENNETT: From few people, not from a lot of people.
MR. SAFIRE: There sure was for...(unintelligible)...The New York Times stuck to their...
MS. MITCHELL: Wait, wait, wait, wait, one second here.
MR. HARWOOD: I’m going to agree with Bill Bennett for one moment.
MS. MITCHELL: Please.
MR. BENNETT: One moment.
MR. HARWOOD: I believe that public opinion is much closer to Bennett on this point than some of the other members of the press in the discussion. After Dana wrote her story about secret prisons we asked in our Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, “Do you think the administration has gone too far in handling terror suspects overseas, or is it taking the right approach?” Fifty-five to 30 the American people said they’ve taken the right approach.
MS. MITCHELL: But the press is never popular, and most notably now.
MR. HARWOOD: Exactly so, and the American people are not overly concerned at this moment about the finest points of civil liberties on this. Secondly, I accept that Bill Bennett is not motivated by politics in his views on this. However, when you talk privately to Republicans on the Hill, why did we have a debate for a couple of days on the Hill about this resolution that had no force of law whatsoever about The New York Times? They’ll tell you it was politics. They love having this discussion. They want it to go on as long as possible.
MR. BENNETT: Well, we’re still talking about basic right and wrong here. And is there any question that people—I think I’m the only one here who signed a nondisclosure agreement when I was—when I was director of national drug control policy, maybe some of you have—it’s a pretty serious matter. People who signed those agreements in government have violated the law, they have violated their oath, they have done so by talking to Dana Priest, talking to Risen and talking to Lichtblau.
MS. MITCHELL: Let, let me...
MR. BENNETT: We need to get after those people, and one way to get after those people is to talk to the reporters who—with whom they spoke.
MR. SAFIRE: Oh, you’re saying “get after them.” That means threatening reporters, and threaten them with contempt and put them in jail.
MR. BENNETT: Absolutely, absolutely.
MR. SAFIRE: And that’s wrong.
MS. MITCHELL: Bill, what, what...(unintelligible)...let me ask, Bill...
MR. BENNETT: Why is that wrong, Bill? Why are they above the law?
MR. SAFIRE: Because they’re affected...
MR. HARWOOD: Because it’s a big step toward tyranny, which is what we’re supposed to be withholding.
MR. BENNETT: It isn’t a step toward tyranny. And what about the AIPAC, guys? Is that a step toward tyranny? They’re being prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Isn’t that more a step toward tyranny?
MS. MITCHELL: Bill—Bill Safire, let me ask you a question about The New York Times. There are a lot of people who believe The New York Times, in doing this latest story, is motivated by an anti-Bush animus. Is The New York Times making a decision that is political rather than editorial?
MR. SAFIRE: The New York Times, like The Wall Street Journal, has a wall of separation between its editorial voice and its front page and its news coverage. And that’s always been the case. Now, does it always stay exactly the same? When you drive right down that road, is it always right? No, it changes. But in this case, I am certain, I’m really certain, that the editorial position of The New York Times about the war—which I completely disagree with—did not affect its coverage of the,of the news.
MS. MITCHELL: Let me, let me show you a Wall Street Journal editorial—a very unusual editorial—that was in the paper on Friday. It said that “The problem with The New York Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don’t. On issue after issue, it has become clear that The Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.” <b>John, I don’t want to really put you on the spot here, but I am. Your paper’s news columns also ran this story, and here you have this editorial. It really is a really sharp conflict......</b>
|
|