(See-Dubya) Bill Keller: Doofus.
(A short guest-post by See-dubya, cross-posted at Junkyard Blog)
From Howard Kurtz’s column on how we partisan meanies are vilifying the poor New York Times for doing their job comes this gem from NYT editor Bill Keller:
“I always start with the premise that the question is, why should we not publish? Publishing information is our job. What you really need is a reason to withhold information.”
Hmmm…how about, oh, because it’s against the f—ing law, jackwipe.
Does he not understand that it is illegal to disseminate classified information? Does that word mean something different in New York?
UPDATE: I always start with the premise, why should I not urinate on something? Urinating on things is something I do. What I really need is a reason not to urinate all over Bill Keller’s tassel loafers.
Sorry, that’s much cruder than I usually write, but Keller’s lame defense deserves much, much worse.
— See Dubya
UPDATE FROM PATTERICO: I have comments on today’s silly New York Times editorial, which I will flesh out this evening.
Since the NY Times and other papers publish thousands of stories a year that disseminate classified information and since as far as I know none of them have ever been charged (much less convicted) with anything for doing so I think it is quite likely that Keller does not understand that this is illegal. Which would mean it isn’t as violations have to be willful.
[Jesus. “Which would mean it isn’t as violations have to be willful.” It’s almost like you haven’t listened to a damn thing I have said. Which makes me wonder if I’m wasting my time discussing this with you. — P]
James B. Shearer (783070) — 6/28/2006 @ 2:52 am“it is quite likely that Keller does not understand that this is illegal”
This may well be correct. Given Keller’s statement about publicizing the program, he shows limited intelligence indeed. Put that together with a clear lack of education and professional experience with such matters, and he may well be so out of his league intellectually that he thinks helping the enemy in wartime is perfectly legal.
Federal Dog (9afd6c) — 6/28/2006 @ 4:28 amKeller,like the government officials he met with,was accompanied by enough lawyers that one of them would have mentioned the potential illegality of publication of this story.The fact that the Times,as well as the LA Times and the WSJ, published shows that the government contention the story’s airing would violate a law to be an empty threat.
TJM (fb5fde) — 6/28/2006 @ 5:18 amIf anyone thinks Keller somehow acted alone,it shows a total lack of understanding of how a corporation like the NYT operates.
why shouldn’t keller think the way he does? as #1 points out, they’ve never been prosecuted for publishing leaks… and since editors measure themselves by the number of pulitzers they win, with Dana Priest winning one for her revealing the details of a classified program, I would have been surprised if Keller hadn’t published the story.
steve sturm (d3e296) — 6/28/2006 @ 5:56 amAre you sure?
actus (ebc508) — 6/28/2006 @ 6:17 amThis would be a great place to find the current list of NYT advertisers.
wizard61 (ec9715) — 6/28/2006 @ 6:19 amThe biggest howler in today’s Howard Kurtz Washington Post article about “piling on the New York Times with a Scoop” is the assertion that this whole campaign has been organized by the White House.
Now there is a statement that reveals a true doofus mentality. A good portion of the outcry going on is that the White House isn’t doing enough/won’t do enough to hang Bill Keller’s sorry carcass high. If Kurt truly believes that the outcry comes solely as a result of White House organization, he’s not smart enough to walk unattended across the street. It’s a blinkered world those clowns live in.
Mike Myers (28fa0a) — 6/28/2006 @ 6:21 amJBS, what if Keller knew the info was classified? A mistaken belief on the part of the perp, Keller (that has a nice ring to it), that he, being part of a privileged group with extra-special constitutional protection, above and beyond those enjoyed by ordinary citizens, is exempt from an otherwise generally applicable law prohibiting disclosure of classified information wouldn’t seem to preclude the necessary intent, would it? It’s not plausible that Keller believes that disclosure of classified information is lawful. He just assumes that the law doesn’t apply to him. As TJM pointed out, the NYTimes lawyers told him so.
But TJM, the further this develops, less it looks like an empty threat and the more the whole situation looks like a Rovian sting operation (and if it is, I approve) — the Mapesification of Bill Keller. This one has “Turdblossom was here” written all over it, much like the operation that brought down Mary Mapes and Dan Rather. Yeah, I know, far-fetched. But just thinking about it brings a smile.
TNugent (6128b4) — 6/28/2006 @ 6:21 amSince the NY Times and other papers publish thousands of stories a year that disseminate classified information and since as far as I know none of them have ever been charged (much less convicted) with anything for doing so I think it is quite likely that Keller does not understand that this is illegal. Which would mean it isn’t as violations have to be willful.
Which we have been discussing, and I explained that a belief that statutes are unconstitutional, or illegal as applied to you, is probably not a defense. Keller knows that spreading classified information is generally illegal. He knows you can’t pass this same stuff to the enemy. He may simply think that, as a newspaper editor, he has the First Amendment right to do anything he likes in the way of publication. Should a court rule that he’s wrong, he’s likely screwed.
You really, really should not be categorical on this. We have discussed the issue (and I’m done with that) and reasoned by analogy, which is great, but it does not provide a definitive answer, so don’t pretend it does.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/28/2006 @ 6:39 amWell, Mike, I’m sure the Rovian plot theory of this episode is taken pretty seriously in some circles — DU, DailyKos, Huffpost, etc.
It’s almost certainly not such a thing, but if it was, it’s a thing of beauty. Think about it — Keller et al. can be counted on to dig when they find themselves in a hole, which is exactly what they’re doing. Even Dems are appalled at what they’ve done, particularly piled on top of the numbskulled effort to turn the NSA wiretap story into a scandal. And if it does go as far as hauling a newsie before a grand jury and threatening him with incarceration if he doesn’t reveal his sources, what’s he gonna do? Ok, I meant, what’s he gonna do after he wishes he could trade places with the guy who decided not to comply with White House’s request not to run the story . . . . This should be fun to watch.
TNugent (6128b4) — 6/28/2006 @ 6:44 amSecurity and Secrecy…
The New York Times introduces their latest defense of the indefensible with a warning, that prior attempts to prosecute the press for disclosing national security secrets did not turn out well. In reminiscing about the Pentagon Papers, the editors …
Dadmanly (5f46ad) — 6/28/2006 @ 7:49 amGuess the Times is just taking a lesson from Bush… laws dont mean anything.
charlie (e16458) — 6/28/2006 @ 7:52 amI certainly hope Bush can convince the DoJ to pursue the leakers by putting the NY Times reporters before a grand jury, a la Cooper and Miller. I wonder how far down the administration his writ goes. It sounds more and more like the permanent bureaucracy is just not on board for the GWOT.
Mike K (c09798) — 6/28/2006 @ 8:33 amNew York Times Paper of Treason?…
In my opinion, the New York Times and any other publications are helping terrorists evade detection in the US and abroad by divulging Classified and Top Secret information leaked to them from disgruntled or individuals with different ideals or plans …..
Center for Sanity (59ce3a) — 6/28/2006 @ 8:46 am[…] Patterico via See-Dubya comment: From Howard Kurtz’s column on how we partisan meanies are vilifying the poor New York Times for doing their job comes this gem from NYT editor Bill Keller: “I always start with the premise that the question is, why should we not publish? Publishing information is our job. What you really need is a reason to withhold information.” […]
FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Global War on Terror Watch: Piling on the New York Times? (baa0b4) — 6/28/2006 @ 9:18 amPatterico, ok if it makes you feel better I will just say it is arguable that the word “willful” in the statute requires the government prove knowledge that the conduct was unlawful.
I will point out that I was responding to a post that made the categorial claim that the NY Times story was illegal. Since I am unaware of any successful prosecutions on similar facts I am not convinced. Do you think a categorial claim that the story was illegal is justified?
[Disseminating classified information is a crime, but there are open issues as to whether the publication of these articles would be. — P]
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 6/28/2006 @ 10:23 amThere’s more to the analysis than “wilful”, if you concede the First Amendment issue. The government then also has the burden of persuasion that the statute protects an overwhelming governmental interest, that it is the narrowest remedy fashioned to protect that interest and that it gives crystal clear notice and guidance –“strict scrutiny”, no “overbreadth”, no “vagueness”. It’s a hard row to hoe for a prosecutor who concedes that he is trying to punish publication based on content.
I have already said the real crime (the easy crime to prove) is that, knowing that the information was classified, the reporters nonetheless subborned, or conspired with, the government officials to have the government officials violate the law … blah, blah, blah … Jimmy Hoffa went to prison just for possessing some Grand Jury testimony from his case that his attorney had given to him. Maybe NYT has an absolute First Amendment right to publish the President’s underwear size but it does not have a First Amendment right to give him a wedgie in order to look at the label.
nk (54c569) — 6/28/2006 @ 12:00 pm[…] UPDATE: Others: Patterico, Rantings Profs, Sundries Shack, Roger Simon, Newsbusters, The Glittering Eye, Sweetness and Light, A Blog For All, Liberty And Justice, The Real Ugly American, […]
Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Harsh Assessment (a177fd) — 6/28/2006 @ 2:50 pm