Dean Baquet Publishes Letter Attempting to Justify the L.A. Times’s Exposure of a Classified and Successful Counterterrorism Program
Editor Dean Baquet has published an open letter to readers explaining the paper’s decision to publish classified details about the legal and effective Swift counterterror program.
Baquet fails to offer any compelling justification for eviscerating this legal and successful counterterrorism program. And Baquet fails to recognize that his decision was made on the basis of woefully inadequate information.
There is little I can say that I haven’t already said in several other posts, but let me point out some of the more glaring problems. Baquet says:
The decision to publish this article was not one we took lightly. We considered very seriously the government’s assertion that these disclosures could cause difficulties for counterterrorism programs. And we weighed that assertion against the fact that there is an intense and ongoing public debate about whether surveillance programs like these pose a serious threat to civil liberties.
We sometimes withhold information when we believe that reporting it would threaten a life. In this case, we believed, based on our talks with many people in the government and on our own reporting, that the information on the Treasury Department’s program did not pose that threat. Nor did the government give us any strong evidence that the information would thwart true terrorism inquiries. In fact, a close read of the article shows that some in the government believe that the program is ineffective in fighting terrorism.
In the end, we felt that the legitimate public interest in this program outweighed the potential cost to counterterrorism efforts.
I remain stunned that Mr. Baquet believes his newspaper was in a position to have “weighed” the effect that disclosure would have on counterterrorism efforts. The program’s chief success has been the capture of Hambali, the mastermind of the Bali bombing. Yet Baquet’s own Washington Bureau Chief, Doyle McManus, has admitted: “The first I knew of that was when I read it in the New York Times.”
Indeed, a close read of the L.A. Times article does suggest that the program has been ineffective. But a close read of the articles published by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal shows something quite different. Not only did the government capture Hambali, but it also confirmed the identity of a major Iraqi terror facilitator, and learned information regarding the 2005 London terror bombings.
The bottom line, Mr. Baquet, is that you are not in a position to weigh anything if you don’t know all the facts. And your paper clearly didn’t.
We are not out to get the president. This newspaper has done much hard-hitting reporting on terrorism, from around the world, often at substantial risk to our reporters. We have exposed terrorist cells and led the way in exposing the work of terrorists. We devoted a reporter to covering Al Qaeda’s role in world terrorism in the months before 9/11. I know, because I made the assignment.
But we also have an obligation to cover the government, with its tremendous power, and to offer information about its activities so citizens can make their own decisions. That’s the role of the press in our democracy.
The founders of the nation actually gave us that role, and instructed us to follow it, no matter the cost or how much we are criticized. Thomas Jefferson said, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” That’s the edict we followed.
I’m not going to follow the lead of many of my conservative brethren and accuse you of being out to get the President. I think people can make up their own minds on that issue. But I do accuse you of having blown this decision, and you can’t hide behind Thomas Jefferson now.
This was a tough call for me, as I’m sure it was for the editors of other papers that chose to publish articles on the subject. But history tells us over and over that the nation’s founders were right in pushing the press into this role. President Kennedy persuaded the press not to report the Bay of Pigs planning. He later said he regretted this, that he might have called it off had someone exposed it.
History has taught us that the government is not always being honest when it cites secrecy as a reason not to publish. No one believes, in retrospect, that there was any true reason to withhold the Pentagon Papers, although the government fought vigorously to keep them from being published by the New York Times and the Washington Post. As Justice Hugo Black put it in that case: “The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.”
I don’t expect all of our readers to agree with my call. But understand that it was one taken with serious reflection and supported by much history.
And inadequate facts.
Notably missing from your piece, Mr. Baquet, is any true justification for printing the article. We learn that you supposedly agonized over the decision, and that the Founding Fathers loved a free press, and that you really, really aren’t out to get Bush.
But what is the affirmative argument for publication? Surely you see that publishing such sensitive details requires one. But I don’t see it.
Your Washington Bureau Chief has said that the key factors he looked at in making the decision to publish were: “Is this legal? Are there safeguards?”
Yet, as I have demonstrated, the evidence in all the articles suggests that the program is legal, that it does have adequate safeguards, and that key Congressional committees were briefed.
Given these facts, where is the compelling public interest in revealing classified details of a legal and effective anti-terror program?
If this is the best you have to offer as a justification, Mr. Baquet, then you have made a terrible mistake, that may have tragic consequences for our country.
UPDATE: Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for the link. He has much more on the Baquet piece, here.
This is a war between the Newspapers who believe the First Amendment is more important then Article Two. How many divisions do the LA Times and the New York Times have?
http://valley-of-the-shadow.blogspot.com/2006/06/living-in-cloud-cuckoo-land-pt-2.html#links
JSF (a90377) — 6/27/2006 @ 7:19 amClueless arrogant jerk who thinks we’re all members of the mushroom society is what came to mind when I perused Baquet’s piece in this morning’s Times.
Mike Myers (28fa0a) — 6/27/2006 @ 7:54 amKeller’s letter was weak. Baquet’s letter was weak. Who counsels these guys? Did no one read these and say, “You know boss, this sucks. Every blogger out there is going to fisk the f**K out of this. Maybe we should stand mute.” Especially Baquet. After John Snow made a liar out of Keller, I’d have expected a reasonably intellect guy to hold off on releasing a lame response that contradicts my own D.C bureau chief.
craig mclaughlin (8a1a7e) — 6/27/2006 @ 8:43 amI meant a “reasonbly intelligent” and “his own.” Proofreading…
craig mclaughlin (8a1a7e) — 6/27/2006 @ 8:49 amLike Craig said, I’m surprised he walked into this one.
See-Dubya (afdbd2) — 6/27/2006 @ 9:01 amStill looking for the *good* that exposing this program protects…
sharon (03e82c) — 6/27/2006 @ 9:09 amWhy be surprised? If you’re clueless and arrogant, the world is full of land mines for you to step on. The wounds are self inflicted. I will say that Baquet was able to figure out the consequences of Sock Puppet Hiltzik, {“I thought that the story about business deception coming out in the Enron trial was a good one, but I realized that my business writer was in no position to write about deception”–or something along those lines} so he may ultimately come around on this one. But it’s too late–the damage has been done to us. It’s a high price for the public to pay–simply because we have slow witted arrogant twits at the head of two major newspapers.
Mike Myers (28fa0a) — 6/27/2006 @ 9:13 amOne aspect of the Baquet defense that’s hard to swallow: That this story was about “civil liberties.”
One could argue that the NSA revelations had at least some relationship to the civil liberties of American citizens. The discomfort with that program is understandable, though misguided. But SWIFT is about international banking. Do civil libertarians believe the U.S. government has an obligation to protect the privacy of foreign banking transactions involving individuals linked to criminal terrorists?
The civil liberties defense to me gives away the game. Baquet has no idea why it was okay to print this story. His statement is a compendium of after-the-fact rationalizations.
John Stodder (2134a2) — 6/27/2006 @ 9:20 amFeel free, one and all, to comment on Baquet’s column & related affairs over at our Opinion L.A. site: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2006/06/we_explain_you_.html
Matt Welch (b044ef) — 6/27/2006 @ 9:27 amDean Baquet, LA Times Editor, Gets It All Wrong — Again!…
I’m running out of invective over the LAT and the NYT decision to publish the existence and details of our governments “Classified” terrorist-financial-tracking program last week. Bill Keller, the executive editor of the NYT came out with his woeful…
OKIE on the LAM - In LA (e2cef7) — 6/27/2006 @ 9:37 am[…] Patterico has his analysis here. Notably missing from your piece, Mr. Baquet, is any true justification for printing the article. We learn that you supposedly agonized over the decision, and that the Founding Fathers loved a free press, and that you really, really aren’t out to get Bush. […]
FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Global War on Terror Watch: Dean Baquet - Why the Los Angeles Times Published the Secret Details of SWIFT Bank Data Anti-Terrorism Program (baa0b4) — 6/27/2006 @ 9:44 amFisk or forget the Two Timers’ lame excuses. They can’t openly admit the actual reason behind their disgraceful disclosure, so expect more pretense, tap dancing, double talking, confusion, and misdirection.
So, why did the Two Timers disclose the financial data tracking program? They did it to punish the Bush administration in retaliation for killing Al Zarkawi.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 6/27/2006 @ 9:45 am“The Wall Street Journal received no request to withhold the story.”
At least Patterico mentioned the WSJ offhand, but until he, Hugh Hewitt and the Powerline Boys start condemning the Wall Street Journal as strongly as the “Two Times,” I’ll decline to believe you’re serious about this. Since if the New York Times hates America and wants to help terrorists, clearly the WSJ does too. As it is, and since the WSJ published the story at the same time as the “Two Times,” it’s clear you just want to bash newspapers with not-entirely-Bush-friendly editorial pages.
As for the purpose of publishing it, it’s pretty simple. It was already known — because Bush had said so — that they were tracking terrorists’ financial records. What was not known was that their way of doing it was one that was completely removed from oversight by Congress or the courts, and thereby removed from any protection against abuse. This fits a pattern of oversight-free conduct by the administration, conduct that is dangerously similar to the conduct of the Johnson and Nixon administrations (two administrations that massively abused surveillance programs). Hence, the story is of interest, and since Bush had already talked about this kind of surveillance, it is of no conceivable harm to national security. And until the WSJ gets hauled into court, I’ll assume the Bush administration knows that.
[I have explained in a separate post why the WSJ stands in a different position. Check my posts from the last few days. Also, it is patently untrue that there was no congressional oversight. Intelligence committees from both houses of Congress were kept apprised. Sounds like you need to get better informed. Reading this site daily would be a good start; I’ve already said all this. — Patterico]
M.A. (74dec8) — 6/27/2006 @ 10:52 amSubscription cancelled. I’ll miss Jonah’s column and the sports section, but not much else. Hello, OC Register.
rick (832617) — 6/27/2006 @ 11:18 amPulitzer prizes and kickbacks from AQ are more important to the Times than protecting our counter terrorism efforts. I can’t help but this wierd feeling some right-wing nutjob is going to snipe the NYT editor from across the street.
Trickish Knave (26622e) — 6/27/2006 @ 11:37 amKickbacks?
actus (ebc508) — 6/27/2006 @ 11:56 amTo “Rick”:
I would suggest reading the “Orange Punch” blog (http://blogs.ocregister.com/orangepunch/) before ordering a subscription – especially read Bush-“Cheney-Snow attack on a free press continues”.
Libertarian absolutists at the OC Register and liberals at the LA/NY Times are in the same boat.
Tim H. (5cec7e) — 6/27/2006 @ 1:39 pm“In the Public Interest”…
The New York Times and Los Angeles Times assert that they have a right to publish wartime operations if there is, in the newspaper’s opinion, significant public “need-to-know” about them. Here’s an example of a World War II operation that……
The Interocitor (ca7e8c) — 6/27/2006 @ 2:24 pmTim, there’s no question the Register – or at least that moron John Seiler – is just as bad as the Times in terms of being on the wrong side of the issue. However, unlike the Timeses, there’s no evidence the Register ever actually went out and did what it foolishly defends the Timeses for doing. Morally, It’s the difference between Johnnie Cochran making stupid excuses for a murder, and O.J. actually committing one.
Xrlq (b79ca2) — 6/27/2006 @ 2:29 pm[…] Patterico, John McIntyre, MediaBlog, and Flap have much more. Once any MSMer makes the admission that disclosure of the program could possibly help terrorists elude capture, the argument is over. To run such a risk would require an enormous benefit, and while the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program did not meet that standard in the eyes of many, the benefit of ratting out this program is so slight as to be obviously not worth the damage done. […]
SSBG » Blog Archive » More on the Times Two Meltdown (71c0e9) — 6/27/2006 @ 3:34 pmi can’t add much except to say that the thing that blows me away the most is this: they published both the odds and the methods. the odds of catching a message and instruction set. and the methods – in that – the papers’ spoke to the method of analyzing the message. that pisses me off more than the publishing of the program.
(is it just me?)
mark (296599) — 6/27/2006 @ 3:44 pmNYT with this, and Bush with bogus border security, are both taking pretty big gambles that any future terrorist attack won’t be able to be pinned back to their lame policies.
Wesson (c20d28) — 6/27/2006 @ 3:44 pmwesson–
The main difference is we elected Bush.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 6/27/2006 @ 5:32 pm“What was not known was that their way of doing it was one that was completely removed from oversight by Congress or the courts, and thereby removed from any protection against abuse.”
Completely removed from oversight by Congress? I guess in your alternate universe briefing Congress on this program isn’t “oversight.” But then, I’m beginning to think the NYT & LAT inhabit the same universe because it seems they tried very hard to find evidence of “abuse.”
sharon (fecb65) — 6/27/2006 @ 5:48 pmAnd that gives him the right to decide a lot.
actus (6234ee) — 6/27/2006 @ 6:36 pmIf Treasury thought it had grounds for judicial relief, why did it not seek an injunction? It has as a hugely conservative judiciary compared to the judges who looked at the Pentagon Papers case.
I’m beginning to think Keller was played. They anticipated he’d wring his hands for two weeks or so and eventually run the story. Since the public is rightfully behind any such scheme to track terror paymasters, the trap was sprung. Roveco loosed the blog and radio hounds.
I am dying to know who these “members of Congress and legal authorities from both sides of the aisle” were. According to the Chicago Tribune, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee wasn’t informed of the program until after the Administration was told the NYT was going to publish the story.
steve (db6ba8) — 6/27/2006 @ 7:00 pmIf Treasury thought it had grounds for judicial relief, why did it not seek an injunction? It has as a hugely conservative judiciary compared to the judges who looked at the Pentagon Papers case.
Evidently you have no clue about First Amendment law — and, as usual, you show no sign of having read my posts. As I said in this post:
You have a very cartoonish view of the judiciary if you think that conservative judges will ignore precedent to do whatever suits them. I know that’s the fun thing to say at cocktail parties. But it’s not true.
According to the Chicago Tribune, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee wasn’t informed of the program until after the Administration was told the NYT was going to publish the story.
I think you mean the ranking Democrat member. The ranking member is the chairman, who, as the same article says one paragraph later, says he was briefed shortly after becoming chairman in 2004. And ranking Senate members were briefed too:
Links. They allow people to see the whole story.
Roveco loosed the blog and radio hounds.
Yeah, Rove loosed me. In fact — wait, I have an Instant Message coming in from Karl now — yes, he’s telling me to call you a desperate journalist clinging to your fairy tales. Consider it done.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/27/2006 @ 7:34 pm“Ranking member” is the widely-accepted reference for the senior *minority* party committee member:
In the case of the House Intelligence Committee, that would be Rep. Jane Harman (R-CA):
steve (db6ba8) — 6/27/2006 @ 7:55 pmExcuse my lapse (#28).
Should read:
“Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA).”
steve (db6ba8) — 6/27/2006 @ 8:07 pmHow much more reason do you need to join the LA Times/NY Times boycotts – subscribers run to your phones and cancel your terrorist loving newspapers
searching (0c323a) — 6/27/2006 @ 9:29 pm
Jane Harmon has been so far afield with her denunciations of the Administration, and her explanations for not understanding what she is being briefed on, that she has no credibility in this corner at all. Sometimes I wonder if she didn’t stand too close to her husband’s amp.
Another Drew (758608) — 6/27/2006 @ 10:36 pm[…] Or Patterico’s current “favorite” editor, Dean Baquet of the LAme Crimes LA Times? […]
Strangely Silent: De Doc`s Ventures » Blog Archive » Having Cake, Eating Cake… (48930a) — 6/28/2006 @ 1:30 amGeorge Bush is acting just like every other dictator in the world. He starts a war and then evertime someone shows him to be breaking yet another law or destroying yet another freedom, he dresses up in the flag and insists that we are in danger because someone revealed his little secrets.
I still say its funny how he and his administration did not hesitate to out Valorie Plame and I hardly heard a word of criticism about that. In fact I read a lot of justification including the incredible assertion that she was not really a secret agent! Tell that to the CIA who asked for the investigation.
Oh well Bush will Be Bush..
charlie (e16458) — 6/28/2006 @ 8:03 amOK, Charlie. I know I shouldn’t be feeding the trolls, but I’ll bite: what, exactly, about the current program – the one shut down by the NYT last week – do you think is illegal? While you’re busy contemplating your navel, you might also want to explain why the NYT has yet to make any such allegations itself, and has even endorsed such a program in the wake of 9-11.
Xrlq (ad170a) — 6/28/2006 @ 8:20 am“I still say its funny how he and his administration did not hesitate to out Valorie Plame and I hardly heard a word of criticism about that. In fact I read a lot of justification including the incredible assertion that she was not really a secret agent! Tell that to the CIA who asked for the investigation.”
Charlie, you hypocrite. You complain that people on the right weren’t upset about Valerie Plame (a weak case for leaking, if ever there was one), but I doubt seriously you were upset about the leaking of the NSA program or the SWIFT program. And still, Fitzgerald wasn’t able to indict anyone for “outing” Plame, so why don’t you give that a rest and show outrage at the NYT for printing this info? I mean, it would be consistent, right?
sharon (03e82c) — 6/28/2006 @ 8:33 amOf course, Baquet never explains why he “agonized” over the decision. If the program were ineffective, as he asserts, then what was the consequence of printing the story? What is there to agonize over? Baquet is effectively admitting that printing the story would do at least some damage to the administration’s counterterrorism efforts. He just didn’t realize he admitted it with that statement.
the wolf (1b2325) — 6/28/2006 @ 10:33 amYour comment goes back to my point about what is *good* in publishing the story. If the program had been ineffective or illegal or far too costly vs. returns, it would be *good* to publish information about this program. As it is, there is no *good* to publishing it.
sharon (03e82c) — 6/28/2006 @ 11:37 amOk the facts are that Bush himself has announced such a program so this is no big revelation to the terrorists. But in fact I could agree that this outing was wrong if I could also see all of you agreeing that basically the outing of VPlame was a crimimal act, as the CIA says. and that G Bush himself is a liar and a criminal for his deception and lies. Agree to this and we have common ground.
charlie (e16458) — 6/28/2006 @ 2:46 pmSharon.. someone in this administration outed VP but there is no evidence of outrage over that. If Fitzgerald was not able to indict anyone that only means that someone comitted this crime and has not been found. But right wingers deny that there was even a crime committed. Do you think that there was a crime committed Sharon and who do you think is responsible?
charlie (e16458) — 6/28/2006 @ 2:55 pmDont you honestly think Bush is a liar and a criminal?
I went to the LAT website (Comment #9 by Matt Welch) and posed this question:
“The New York Times frankly admitted that it knew the information was classified at the time it was receiving it from its governmental and non-governmental informants. Does the Los Angeles Times likewise admit that it knew that it was acquiring classified information?”
nk (d5dd10) — 6/28/2006 @ 4:41 pm(Snicker)
You only have to give just one of them immunity and then, if he doesn’t turn over the others, “Judy Miller” him.
What is the crime George Bush allegedly committed?
What assertion did George Bush make that he knew or believed was untrue with the intent to deceive?
Stu707 (cc7fa3) — 6/28/2006 @ 5:34 pm[…] Further, editors of the West Coast Timeses have issued numerous public statements making it very clear that they had done an independent balancing of what they perceived as the competing interests — and the balance, in their (flawed and necessarily uninformed) judgment, weighed in favor of publication. The editors of the Wall Street Journal have issued no such statement. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Debunking the Lefties’ Arguments About the Swift Program — in One Convenient Post (421107) — 6/28/2006 @ 6:33 pm[…] And Patterico commenter steve: I’m beginning to think Keller was played. They anticipated he’d wring his hands for two weeks or so and eventually run the story. Since the public is rightfully behind any such scheme to track terror paymasters, the trap was sprung. Roveco loosed the blog and radio hounds. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Karl Rove Does *Not* Control What I Say. (Did I Say That Right, Karl?) (421107) — 6/29/2006 @ 6:51 amPaterico, You are a leader in the new powerful medium of citizen journalists, bloggers if you will.
Dean Baquet is the darling of the left and now he’s unemployed, thinking David Geffen is going to buy the LA Times and put him back in his leather executive seat with the power to change history, eat and drink well and party with aging Hollywood stars.
See my blog at sadbastards.wordpress.com.
Mick Gregory (846533) — 12/14/2006 @ 6:12 pm