Byron Calame Should Resign
Byron Calame, the public editor of the New York Times, admits today that the paper made a mistake when it decided to run the Swift terrorist finance tracking story. (Via Michelle Malkin.) Calame had previously defended the decision in a column that, he now concedes, gave insufficient weight to the arguments against publication.
Calame’s reversal is welcome, but comes four months too late. Calame never should have defended the publication of the Swift story to begin with. He already had all the facts he needed to oppose the decision back in June, when the story was first published.
Calame says that two factors ultimately persuaded him that running the story was a mistake:
the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused.
But those factors were immediately obvious to anyone reading the article. The evening the article hit the Web, I noted that the article had failed to raise any serious issues regarding the program’s legality. And the next day — the same day the article was published in the print version of the New York Times and Los Angeles Times — I noted the “strict controls” that were in place. Within three days, I had a detailed post, based on the articles themselves, which discussed the program’s legality, controls, and congressional oversight.
Why was I able to figure this out instantly, whereas it took the New York Times’s public editor four months to realize the importance of these facts? It’s not because I’m smarter than Byron Calame; I’m not. It’s because I don’t automatically defend a newspaper simply because it has been attacked by the Bush Administration. By contrast, the only reason Calame supported the paper’s decision, he admits today, was because the paper had been harshly criticized by the Bush Administration:
What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.
Simply put, Byron Calame overlooked (or underweighted) obvious facts, and defended his paper in a knee-jerk fashion, simply because his paper had been viciously attacked by the government.
A public editor who cannot objectively evaluate his paper’s behavior in the face of criticism — from any source — should not be the public editor.
I appreciate Calame’s honesty. But he should resign.
UPDATE: Captain Ed and Tom Maguire have more.
UPDATE x2: Calame’s column gives me an idea for the editors of the L.A. Times. More on that here.
UPDATE x3: I should make clear that, about an hour after I published this, I added a couple of words to make it clear that Calame may have simply underweighted, rather than completely overlooked, a couple of concepts that he discussed in his column.
Mad at George Bush? Get even, give away our intelligence secrets…
Or so says Ombudsman Bryan Calame at the New York Times. Michelle Malkin calls it Un. Freaking. Believable! It really is, isn’t it? The arrogance is mindboggling. What the heck are you talking about Sara? Remember the Swift Program used to monitor and…
Trackback by Squiggler — 10/22/2006 @ 11:21 am
Could a european paper run the story without as much opprobrium because of the apparent illegality of the program under european data protection laws?
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 11:24 am
Try to stay focused here.
New York Times
Calame
Lack of impartial oversight by NYT Ombudsman
that’s the issue.
Let’s keep on track with the argument, m’kay?
Comment by steve miller — 10/22/2006 @ 11:31 am
The way I see it, we could have another paper publish the story first, and the NYT can follow without opprobrium. But this complicates things, because papers like to be able to break stories, not follow.
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 11:37 am
[...] Patterico also thinks he should resign. [...]
Pingback by The Anchoress » “I hated Bush so much I couldn’t do my job…” — 10/22/2006 @ 11:37 am
Hey, Calame is doing a great job….
Patterico thinks NYT ombudsman Byron Calame should resign… for having rushed to defend the NYT’s revealing the details of the SWIFT terrorist tracking program “because the paper had been harshly criticized by the Bush Administration”….
Trackback by Thoughtsonline — 10/22/2006 @ 11:51 am
“vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration”
Clearly the Times thinks it is above criticism.
Comment by pst314 — 10/22/2006 @ 12:06 pm
And thats after the New York Times has lost hundreds of readers and many subcreiptions too bad
Comment by krazy kagu — 10/22/2006 @ 12:41 pm
#4 actus
So you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information? Is that really what you are contending actus? That journalists in this country, who by their own admission should have never published the story, should instead have given all these details to foreign journalists so they could publish them. Then it would be ok for our own MSM to cover. Just want to be clear. Are you condoning that position?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 12:48 pm
Stashiu3,
Of course actus isn’t condoning that position, persay, but…
Comment by EFG — 10/22/2006 @ 12:55 pm
Pinning Jello to a wall, I know. What can I say? Sometimes I’m hardheaded.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 1:01 pm
It’s a fair cop, guv–UPDATED…
The Baathist Broadcasting Company (BBC) admits they’re PC homosexual anti-American Jesus-hating multiculturalists. Problem is, when they say that it’s true, I’m not sure I believe it anymore. UPDATE: Has someone hit the MSM with some kinda truth ray…
Trackback by JunkYardBlog — 10/22/2006 @ 1:28 pm
It’s so obvious that he should resign although I’d argue he should be charged as well.
Anyway, his defense for revealing a classified program he acknowledges was legal (and that we know was formerly effective) is that he was mad?
He was emotional?
He was upset that his paper was verbally attacked?
That’s his justification for endangering national security?
He’s proven he can’t do his job and will reveal classified information in a huff.
Comment by Christoph — 10/22/2006 @ 1:37 pm
I’ll disagree with our esteemed host on this one. Mr Calame made a mistake, something we have all done. But, unlike most of the people in the mainstream media these days, he was able to look back, reasonably objectively, and not only see that he had made a mistake, but admit, in public, that he had done so.
It seems like he might have just learned something from all of this. And if he resigned, what are the probabilities that The New York Times would select someone better?
Comment by Dana — 10/22/2006 @ 1:51 pm
christoff: calame doesn’t reveal classified information… in a huff or otherwise. His job is to cover for those who do.
Comment by steve sturm — 10/22/2006 @ 1:53 pm
This Byron Calame is a cretin and a traitor to America! To claim he did it because the New York Times had been criticzed by the Administration is beyond disingenous!!! It is the New York Times which has served for nothing but propaganda fodder for our Islamist enemies, fueling day to day all the hooplah about how bad things are going in Iraq, and which has leaked more “classified” information on the pretext of “Freedom of the Press” than if they were official spies for Al Qaeda!
Not only should this “New York Times Tokyo Rose” resign, but there should be a Grand Jury investigation as to possible “treason” charges being brought against him and his liberal, pro-Jihadist “Freedom Fighter” rag!
Comment by Althor — 10/22/2006 @ 1:54 pm
In response to the battering of the press against the GOP, I offer the Dems (and their allies in the media such as the NYT and the LAT) this:
http://valley-of-the-shadow.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-dems-are-not-fighting-gwot.html
Comment by JSF — 10/22/2006 @ 2:09 pm
Now The Times Admits Its Mistake…
To quote the kids, “Un-frelling-believable.” The New York Times’ ombudsman, Byron Calame, makes a bombshell revelation today in his column. Michelle Malkin enlightens us with this news.It seems that he’s the one left holding the bag in admitting t…
Trackback by The Asylum Pundits — 10/22/2006 @ 2:15 pm
NYT public editor Byron Calame now admits paper was wrong to publish info on banking-data surveillance program (aka SWIFT)…
Patterico thinks Calame, whose admission is published here, should resign.
While I can understand the sentiment behind Patterico’s call, it’s going to take a lot more changes at the NYT besides a potential Calame resignation to get them t…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 10/22/2006 @ 2:16 pm
Isn’t this a perfect metrosexual non-apology, apology? Calame justifies his own malpractice by citing his feelings! Feelings trump everything in the P.C. world of Barney Calame. It was just “vicious” of the Bush administration to object to the NYTimes’s willingness to jeopardize all of our safety. “Vicious”? Oh my, Barney, what exquisitely delicate liberal sensibilities you possess. I’m sure the Jihadis will be grateful.
Comment by Stephen — 10/22/2006 @ 2:18 pm
Was the SWIFT story true? Yes it was. Good to see all of you on the right hold the first amendment in such contempt. As a taxpayer I have an absolute right to know what my government is doing with my tax money. Secret government programs are for fascist states, not America.
All Calame did was criticize his paper for running a factually accurate story. He had no input into the decision to run the story in the first place, so why should he resign?
Comment by big johnny — 10/22/2006 @ 2:25 pm
#21 big johnny
How about that it was his job and he didn’t do it? In his own words, he didn’t do the job he was supposed to because he was angry at the administration. I also disagree that you have an absolute right to anything. Your rights stop where the safety of others begins. If a government is not allowed to protect its national security and interests, it will not survive. Should people have been told all the details of the Manhattan Project? What use would that information be used for today? Your sense of entitlement does not override the safety and security of our citizens and the forces that protect our way of life. If government cannot have secrets, soldiers die. That might not be a problem for you, it is for me.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 2:59 pm
sorry but you do not have an absolute right to know what the government is doing because secret government programs are for fascist states. If someone had passed the operational plans for attacking the enemy and for infiltrating spy rings by the enemy to the press and got it printed, would you applaud the press for printing it even though the result was the bombing of your kid’s school? That is essentially what the NYT did here. They closed off our ways of following the money trail (something the NYT had advocated right after 9/11) so that now the enemy has a way of passing the money that buys the bombs that kill your neighbor’s son in Iraq. Good to know which side you are on. You want a subjugated America and not a free America with you choosing who to do the subjugating.
Comment by dick — 10/22/2006 @ 3:03 pm
Wait, this should not be a problem for the omnipotent NY Times. They can just un-write what they wrote. Explain it was a hoax? Just kidding? Written by Jason Blair?
Listen, if a few people die, what’s the problem when it comes to the First Amendment being protected by the brave Tribunes of the People at the NY Times? Especially when they were viciously criticised by the jack booted, theocrat, Storm Troopers of the Bush Adminstration.
Good Day To You Sir.
Comment by moneyrunner — 10/22/2006 @ 3:12 pm
Patterico,
This post is #3 on the top 3 linked articles at RealClearPolitics Sunday. Congratulations and you deserve it.
Comment by DRJ — 10/22/2006 @ 3:17 pm
[...] Calame puts this admission second in his column. After a, quite frankly, useless explanation of why the Times is becoming more magazine-like to support the core news gathering. Uh, sure. A lot of us have been saying ever since the publication of details of a legal program with adequate oversight, that the Times was badly out of line. Nice of Calame to finally notice the nose on his face. Patterico lauds the column for honesty, then calls for Calame to resign. He's right. [...]
Pingback by Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » The Timing May Be Off — 10/22/2006 @ 3:20 pm
It’s nice to see that someone in public life can admit a mistake. More power to him. Now if only our “esteemed” leaders would admit a few of thier mistakes.
Comment by Mark — 10/22/2006 @ 3:21 pm
Quote: Listen, if a few people die, what’s the problem when it comes to the First Amendment being protected by the brave Tribunes of the People at the NY Times? Especially when they were viciously criticised by the jack booted, theocrat, Storm Troopers of the Bush Adminstration.
Comment by moneyrunner — 10/22/2006 @ 3:12 pm
Amazing! One more “sensitive” commentary by the left-wing “intelligentia”!
It wouldn’t be so bad if those who’d die and be made to “cease and desist” permanetly would be the likes of “moonbats” like you, Moneyrunner, but when it endangers “innocent” lives, and or brings about their demise needlessly due to some left-wing political hack with a “political agenda” at the New York Times, that is another matter altogether!
Unbelievable!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 10/22/2006 @ 3:32 pm
#28 Althor
That was heavy sarcasm by moneyrunner. Parody of lefty rants. Just sayin’
The “Good day to you sir” is trademark sockpuppet phrasing of Wilson/Ellison/et.al., noted best-selling author whose blog has been read… somewhere, I forget actually. 
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 3:37 pm
NYT Public Editor Admits Publication Wrong…
It takes three months to realize that these stories undermine US national security? That there was no illegal activity on the part of the US government? Or that the NYT should have held the stories because of the beneficial data that these programs c…..
Trackback by A Blog For All — 10/22/2006 @ 3:42 pm
Resign, hell! Fetch a rope….
NYT’s Calame: Oops. Our Bad.Ed Morrissey The New York Times’ public editor, Byron Calame, initially supported the publication of the confidential national-security program that tracked terrorist financing through the Swift banking program. Now, at th…
Trackback by Bill's Bites — 10/22/2006 @ 3:44 pm
I think the NYT editor was truly afraid of criticism, but not from the Bush Administration.
Could you imagine the vicious criticism he and the NYT would have experienced from liberals had the story not been published?
Comment by Webluker — 10/22/2006 @ 4:35 pm
#32 Webluker
If they hadn’t published, how would liberals have known they were considering a story?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 4:46 pm
tsk, tsk, tsk. why are you people so afraid of people who drive camels and live in caves ten thousand miles away? Rice got the message from Tenet and Clark, and didn’t think it was important. Why should people who dropped the ball be given more power when they didn’t fully utilize the power the had prior to 9/11????? And sorry, but i disagree. state secrets are bullshit. this is not a tactical military operation. you can’t have it both ways: you can’t say on the one hand that the terrorists are big, bad and resourceful and will go to the most dastardly lengths to attack us, then on the other hand act like they are so stupid they wouldn’t figure out we would be trying to track their finances through legitimate banking institutions. quit peeing yourselves.
Comment by big johnny — 10/22/2006 @ 4:49 pm
Any criticism of The New York Times is a thought crime against The New York Times and all elite intellectuals believe this.
Comment by Peter Rice — 10/22/2006 @ 4:49 pm
#34 big johnny
Actually, I can have it both ways and say both things, especially since you don’t know what you’re talking about. Go back to Kos and review all six cards this time.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 5:12 pm
What this clown is saying in effect is that he is nothing more than Pinch’s bitch faggot
Comment by Lord Locksley — 10/22/2006 @ 5:16 pm
Democrats remind me of young people I like, such as a charismatic big brother or a cool uncle, while Republicans are reminescent of adult figures like a dependable dad or grandfather. Like many young people, Democrats are known for their idealism and strong feelings but they can also be irresponsible and overly emotional. Republicans, like most adults, are known for steadfastness and pragmatism but can also be stern and inflexible.
Bryan Calame and the Times’ editors remind me of young people I know who are good people but who lack good judgment. In this case, the Times’ editors were unwilling to seriously consider the Bush Administration’s objections to publishing a story about the SWIFT program because of previous Bush Administration criticism of the Times. The Times might as well have said “You’ve been mean to me” or “You can’t say ‘No’ to me” and “I’ll show you.” The Times’ response is tantamount to something teenagers might say or do when their parents won’t let them use the car keys.
Anyway, this is my long-winded way of saying I agree with Patterico that Calame should be an adult and resign.
Comment by DRJ — 10/22/2006 @ 5:17 pm
BTW, Big Johnny, the SWIFT program is a tactical military operation in this war.
Comment by DRJ — 10/22/2006 @ 5:19 pm
so you can have it both ways, you mean like a little baby?
Comment by big johnny — 10/22/2006 @ 5:20 pm
I apologize for my typo in Mr. Calame’s first name.
Comment by DRJ — 10/22/2006 @ 5:21 pm
#40 big johnny
Ignoring trollish behavior
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 5:23 pm
Stashiu,
I know, and I did think before I posted, but it was worth it.
Comment by DRJ — 10/22/2006 @ 5:24 pm
As far as I’m concerned, he’s had his chances. Not wasting any more time on him. Bitter failure in life and unable to discuss anything rationally. Full-blown BDS, probably at the incurable stage. Pity.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 5:29 pm
at least i’m not crying about the fact that a newspaper printed the truth.
Comment by big johnny — 10/22/2006 @ 5:34 pm
Dim Johnny, did anyone dispute that the NYT’s story was true? Last time I checked, truth was not a defense to publishing classified information. The smart money says all the nuclear secrets Aldrich Ames and the Rosenbergs gave to the Russians were true, too. So what? It would have been better if they had printed stuff that wasn’t true.
Comment by Xrlq — 10/22/2006 @ 5:47 pm
Quote: at least i’m not crying about the fact that a newspaper printed the truth.
Comment by big johnny — 10/22/2006 @ 5:34 pm
No, not about that you aren’t! You are only still crying about Bush winning the election in 2000!
Wow Big Johnny! That a newspaper publishes “classified” information, which naturally is true, can simply be justified by saying like you did “that at least the newspaper published the truth”?!?! What kind of sick, warped, delusional justification is that?!?!
Precisely! They published “the truth” that for the sake of national security should not have been in the public domain, “aiding and abetting” the enemy with information they will find extremely useful to know, and endangering the lives of innocent people in the process! Doh!!!
I wish Jack Nicholson was here to slap you silly and tell you, you are the one that “can’t handle the truth” in your left-wing irrational paranoia!!!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 10/22/2006 @ 5:50 pm
Oh, it’s classified so the NYT can’t mention it; but Bush can talk about it several times in public before the paper does the story and you’ve got no problem there. Fact is, I am paying for this shit. It is not a “tactical operation” and it is stupid. If I’m pissed at Bush, it’s because his administration dropped the ball and let the 9/11 hijackers in through the front door. In repsonse to that, he and his enablers try to grab more power than they need to cover their asses. Clinton foiled numerous attacks under the existing law, why can’t Bush fight terrorism and follow the law as it is written? Bush and his people are corrupt. Sorry you tools haven’t figured that one out yet.
Comment by big johnny — 10/22/2006 @ 5:57 pm
#48 big johnny
Ignoring trollish behavior
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 5:59 pm
If part of the problem is that it breaks no law, then would we level as much opprobrium at a paper that published it in a place where there was a question as to whether the law was being followed? In a place that is also part of the war on terror, and concerned about terrorists being caught?
I don’t think they’d give the story to the competition. I think they’d want to publish the story before the competition.
I thought they held the story for a while.
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 6:30 pm
[...] Linked with Michelle Malkin, Patterico’s Pontifications,The Anchoress, JunkYardBlog, Macsmind, Riehl World View, [...]
Pingback by Right Voices » Blog Archive » New York Times Editor Is Sorry He Blabbed! Too Late, Damage Is Done! — 10/22/2006 @ 6:39 pm
Big Johnny you are truly in complete denial here!
With all the revelations that have become public of late, from the ABC miniseries to North Korea’s sticking the middle finger in Clinton’s face and to his “worthless” “Jimmy Carter” nuclear agreement of 1994, to all that has been divulged lately about the monumental shortcoming of the Clinton Administration, you really have to be totally delusional and cynical to blame President Bush for the mess he inherited from Clinton!
It wasn’t Bush but Clinton in his monumental incompetency, who failed to adress from getting Bin Laden the “eight times” - count them - “eight,” he could have gotten him and failed to do so because of some stupid “technicality,” to letting N. Korea get away with developing nuclear weapons under his very nose while furnishing with billions of dollars in oil and food which only served to buttress the regime!!!
You have to be totally deranged, in face of the facts staring you in the face, to once again, habitually, blame it all on Bush, when the one that was too busy, either chasing interns to have sex with them or dealing with all his scandals, to pay attention to our “national security” was non other than Clinton himself!!!
Stop smoking whatever it is you Democrats smoke nowadays…. or lay off the “acid’ from the 60’s!
Get real!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 10/22/2006 @ 6:44 pm
[...] Patterico’s Pontifications [...]
Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Bush Made Me Do It — 10/22/2006 @ 7:05 pm
Re: Mr. Calame’s comments on the “Swift” program - I guess this isn’t the kind of group that would take kindly to the idea that most relatively sophisticated people assumed that the government had been long engaged in this kind of financial oversight program and that the Times article 1) only confirmed the obvious; 2) had no impact on methods of terrorist financing. Its impact seemed to be mostly on domestic politics, in that it allowed the Bush admininistration to try once again to discredit the national press, which is making a valiant effort to provide objective reporting about how effectively, legally, and fairly OUR government is using OUR military, OUR intelligence services, and OUR taxes. I say, more power to the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the broadcast media for providing an extremely important public service.
Comment by M. Dean — 10/22/2006 @ 7:06 pm
Here, actus, he’s one of yours.
Comment by moneyrunner — 10/22/2006 @ 7:15 pm
I wouldn’t tell him to resign. He has probably learned something, but Bill Keller is still there and doesn’t seem to have learned anything.
What really disturbs me about this whole issue is that the reasons for disclosing both this and the NSA wiretaps are so legally and philosophically asinine. The idea that any individual’s privacy is more important than efforts to prevent his death or his committing murder is what it boils down to.
This issue has gone from the so-called right to be let alone, which is pretty much only a problem for celebrities. Most of our lives are of absolutely no interest to anyone else, except perhaps identity thieves. The idea of government agents trolling through our conversations is absurd, but the idea that the agencies we’ve created to protect us, including our rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, privacy, etc. are unable to follow up potential evidence of plots to kill civilians, unless some judge is consulted while it disappears, strikes me as a violation of the rights of everybody else. This is ACLU-think, pure and simple, straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
Mr. Calame came to his conclusion belatedly, but honestly. He wrote a weak defense at the time, but he reconsidered. However, he didn’t make the original decision to publish the story, and there is no indication that those who did wouldn’t do it again.
The extension of the First Amendment to granting newspaper editors the authority to countermand classification of national security information. This is not the Pentagon Papers. There is no reason to believe that those involved in either program were acting from any malign purpose.
The press today sees every battle as another Vietnam, even after we are directly attacked, and every secret as another Watergate cover up. Considering the damage our media and liberals did to our resolve to carry out our treaty obligations to the South Vietnamese, they should be less confident, not more, to make decisions that nobody has elected them to do.
Comment by AST — 10/22/2006 @ 7:19 pm
Quote: I say, more power to the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the broadcast media for providing an extremely important public service.
Comment by M. Dean — 10/22/2006 @ 7:06 pm
Sure! More power to your “anti-Bush,” “anti-Administration,” “hate America,” propaganda machine! Hooray! Not even Al Jazeera provides propagandistic fodder for our enemies better than that illustrious bunch of leftist rags you mentioned; with the notable exception, of course, of the Wall Steert Journal, which is more “balanced” in its approach!
Apparently, you consider the war in Iraq just mere Bush “adventurism” unworthy to be called a war, but the fact is that WE ARE AT WAR! Back in WWII there was such a thing as “CENSORSHIP” of what could be printed in the Press! With all the unrelenting flow of “classified” information being divulged in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all those other “allies” and purveyors of the Democrat, left-wing, secularist “propaganda” every other week, the practice is LONG OVERDUE!!!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 10/22/2006 @ 7:42 pm
Bush’s fault…imagine that.
Comment by PC14 — 10/22/2006 @ 8:00 pm
Quote: I say, more power to the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the broadcast media for being Al Qaeda’s counter-intelligence service. (SARCASM)
Comment by nk — 10/22/2006 @ 8:00 pm
Don’t you know? apparently the WSJ is not at fault here. At least according to our host. Being second means you’re safe.
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 8:01 pm
AST,
What an excellent comment. While I’m not sure I agree, I even appreciate your suggestion that Mr. Calame should stay on because he might have learned something from this experience. Perhaps it’s true that journalists will think twice about national security matters in the future. Then again, maybe the lesson they learned is to hide their real motives - at least until they get a big book deal.
Comment by DRJ — 10/22/2006 @ 8:05 pm
Which relates to the comment how?
Comment by moneyrunner — 10/22/2006 @ 8:07 pm
Actus #60,
I had some choice things to say about that, not against our host but against the Administration, on that thread. I’m glad that the conversation has veered from Patterico’s main point in his post because, for the life of me, I can’t see why Calame should be harder on himself than the Administration was on the publishers and, for all we know so far, the leakers.
Comment by nk — 10/22/2006 @ 8:11 pm
The comment mentioned the LAT, NYT, and WSJ together as al qaeda’s “counter-intelligence service.” But some people — myself included — are of the opinion that publishing second is safe. The info is already out there.
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 8:14 pm
Actus has a point, moneyrunner. The Administration objected to the NYT but practically peddled the story to the WSJ. (I don’t agree with any implication that Patterico approved. He had several follow-up posts regarding prosecution of the publishers as well as the leakers.)
Comment by nk — 10/22/2006 @ 8:14 pm
#50 Actus
The information was classified, although the broad outlines were known, the details were not. If the NYT had not published, how would a foreign paper get the information, if not from the NYT? Use some critical thinking skills here. That information was leaked for a specific, partisan purpose and the NYT played along, knowing the program was not illegal and the information published was classified.
#54 M.Dean
You’re correct, I certainly don’t take kindly to lies and spin, moral relativism, or apologists for traitors. By “most sophisticated people” you mean the ones who hate the administration I assume, and include yourself in the sophisticated group. (That’s not a question in case you missed it.) Where’s your link or source to back up that nonsense? In case you missed it, the “sophisticated people” are outnumbered as well as clueless. I am rapidly becoming certain that the people you consider “unsophisticate” are getting ticked off and will be out to vote, despite what those skewed polls show. They’ve been completely wrong since Nixon, at least they’re consistent.
#56 AST
Very good points, especially the last paragraph. Thank you.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 8:17 pm
Are foreign newspapers incapable of figuring out things? They could find out from leaks at SWIFT.
I’ll say!
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 8:28 pm
67. Actus
The point is, they didn’t find out from SWIFT, did they? SWIFT wasn’t drawing attention to it. It took a partisan traitor to voluntarily violate an oath and pass information onto someone not entitled to it. Again, critical thinking actus, not just coming out with some new theory that has no basis in fact.
Answer the original questions actus:
Do you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information?
Then this:
Do you believe that journalists in this country, who by their own admission should have never published the story, should instead have given all these details to foreign journalists so they could publish them? Then it would be ok for our own MSM to cover?
You haven’t answered these, just redirected away from them. Let’s hear what you believe about these questions, not new ones you make up.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 8:55 pm
Actus has a way of taking a good argument to ridiculous extremes. The NYT is a bunch of expletive deleteds. Still, the Administration dropped the ball. Instead of arrest warrants and perp walks it responded with “filling in the blanks” for the WSJ and LAT. It sure looked to me as though it was just trying to dilute the NYT’s exclusive.
Comment by nk — 10/22/2006 @ 9:05 pm
#69 nk
I expect that is correct. Why should the NYT have been rewarded with an exclusive for treason? There has to be another reason for not arresting and perpwalking everyone involved. I would contend that, rather than dropping the ball, the administration was protecting the rest of the information that had not gone public. They would have almost certainly faced defense requests for classified information that they would claim was “necessary for a fair defense” and all the attending fallout. Instead they minimized the damage that had already been done to protect what was left, and cleared the way for finding the traitor who leaked it in the first place. Just my opinion.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 9:15 pm
how do you know this? People at a consulting company, as well as at a foreign company (in a place where it might be illegal), had access to the existence of this program. And yet you think that it was someone in this country violating an oath that passed it on?
Certainly. It implicates EU privacy law. Are the Europeans not entitled to their laws? They’re also concerned about the war on terror too.
I do not think journalists should be giving stories to their competition to break and then follow. They should just go ahead and publish first if that is the case.
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 9:16 pm
#71 actus
Thank you for the direct answers. The fact that you are more loyal to the EU and willing to harm the National Security interests of the United States on their behalf is now on public record.
Of course, I have now lost what little respect I had for you in the past. I am probably not alone.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 9:21 pm
I think they have reasonable, though different, laws and the same security interests as we do.
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 9:25 pm
Stashiu3, Comment #70: I don’t disagree. But I have commented here before that I am a firm believer of the “roust”. You arrest them, strip-search them, anal-probe them, lock them up until they post bail, lock them up again until they give up their snitches and then decide whether to proceed with trial or dismiss the case. Contrary to
the unlawful combatantsour leftist friends I think the Administration is too soft not too hard.Comment by nk — 10/22/2006 @ 9:29 pm
#74 nk
There is merit to that method, but I’ll stay away from matters of policy until after I retire.
#73 actus
Our security interests are for us. Apparently you consider yourself a “sophisticated” member of the world community. I won’t question your patriotism as you’ve just demonstrated you don’t have any. And your loyalty to the EU outweighing your loyalty to the US is still on public record. From today forward, Google is not your friend, at least not if you ever want a security clearance. Good on ya.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 9:41 pm
I just think the EU has pretty much the same interest we do in stopping terrorist financing. So my loyalty is to the same thing. And as i’ve said before, i’m a bit of an open government nut.
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 9:50 pm
#77 actus
Oh, I think anyone reading your words now, or in the future, can see exactly what you mean. For a change.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 9:53 pm
I meant #76 actus… PIMF
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 9:54 pm
Really? are you sure? Do you think the EU and the US have the same interest in stopping terrorist financing?
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 9:55 pm
Byron Calame doesn’t need to resign, he’s only a low level flack catcher.
The guys who’re to blame haven’t yet seen the light. But, rosy fingered dawn signals daybreak.
Comment by Black Jack — 10/22/2006 @ 9:56 pm
#79 actus
That wasn’t the question and changing it now doesn’t change your answer (although I will answer your question in a moment). The question was if you would help the EU even if it clearly hurt US National Security. You said you would.
Now, do I think the EU and US have the same interest in stopping terrorist financing? Absolutely not. They both have an interest in it, but they are not identical. My loyalties lie with the United States. Yours do not.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 10:02 pm
But what you’re missing is that I think it hurts both. I said in my answer (#71) that they’re concerned about the war on terror too. Did you not see that? Thats what I mean, that they have the same concerns we do when it comes to terrorist financing.
The interest is similar enough to me. So my loyalties are basically with the targets of islamic terror. People like me, whether I live in an east coast blue target city or a european city with a reasonable approach to drug laws.
You disagree. You think the interest is different enough. Thats a fine answer. But when it comes to my loyalties, you have to consider what I think the interests are.
Comment by actus — 10/22/2006 @ 10:07 pm
Why do you debate with a slippery eel who just changes the terms of reference every time he gets nailed on a point?
The man should resign because he clearly let his emotions affect his judgement vis a vis defending the publishing of a piece highly damaging to national security.
Letting actus play word salad games with you for the next 3 days is pointless.
Comment by Christoph — 10/22/2006 @ 10:19 pm
#82 actus
I didn’t miss it and answered, our interests are different, not the same, not identical. And US interests take priority for me, they do not for you.
The only thing I have to consider is whether you would place EU interests before US interests. You have stated you would. No matter how much nuance you want to imply, your words are clear (again, for a change). The EU and US are not equivalent, not for US citizens. When you say you would help the EU even if it hurt the US, you declare greater allegiance to the EU. There is no nuance that can make that ok. This is not an “agree to disagree” situation. I do not agree that it is ok for a US citizen to hurt US interests in order to help anyone else. Like I said, good luck if you ever need a security clearance. Those guys are not real big fans of nuance when it comes to National Security.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 10:27 pm
#83 Christoph
He’s already hung himself. Forgive me for belaboring the point, I’ve never successfully nailed Jello to a wall before and was somewhat giddy. He can wiggle away now unless someone else wants a turn, I’m done. Catch and release day I guess.
Thanks Christoph.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/22/2006 @ 10:31 pm
Quote: In case you missed it, the “sophisticated people” are outnumbered as well as clueless. I am rapidly becoming certain that the people you consider “unsophisticate” are getting ticked off and will be out to vote, despite what those skewed polls show. They’ve been completely wrong since Nixon, at least they’re consistent.
#56 AST
Excellent observation! I really get insulted that weeks away from the elections, the Democrats are all shrilly claiming victory in a majority of races too close to call, in what appears to be an excercise in mass self-delusion, and that for all intents and purposes their friends at the “Elite” liberal media are already claiming victory; even though the votes have not even been cast yet!!!
Are they taking us for granted?!?! Do they really think that just because the NYT, the LA Times, the WaPo et al, and Ted Turner’s CNN, the MSN and the biased Alphabet networks are already declaring “victory” for the Democrats as “inevitable,” that we are just going to roll over and croak, and let them take our elections and our votes away from us?!?!
Do they really think America’s “Silent Moral Majority” is going to be so discouraged about some sleezy pubescent-like e-mails by a Gay Republican Representative to stay home all disconsolate on election day, and grant victory to the “Boisterous Immoral Minority” by default, so that they can then push their leftist secular agenda of cut-and-run, Jihadist loving, tax raising, abortionist, gay promoting “alternate lifestyles,” unfettered open borders, moral ralativism, and godlessness in the Public Square, and the rest of their morally bankrupt “politically correct” socialist agenda down our collective throats once again?!?! Are they so “conceited” as to think that conservative voters would be so “morally” upset with Republicans on account of that degenerate ex-Congressman Foley, as to turn around and vote for the Democrats: “The Party of All Things Immoral”?!?! How asinine is that?!?!
They really must take us for the “Yokels” they so “quaintly” equate us with in their
“sophisticated” hubris! What insolence!!!
Every conservative ought to march en masse on November 7th and swamp those polls and put the media “Elite” and their fawning “pollsters,” and all these “sophisticated” Democratic asses (how apropriate: “Democratic Donkeys”!) and put them all in their place once and for all!!!
Don’t be discouraged Middle America! Your vote still counts! Don’t let the Democrats convince you otherwise by prematurely proclaimimg a victory that is not theirs to have!!!
Isn’t it ironic?!?! If only they would be so “confident” of our ultimate success in Iraq as they are of their own “political comeback” in November and of taking back Congress and the Senate, it would fare much better for the U.S. in Iraq…rather than the relentless barrage of vitriol, negativity, and cut-and-run defeatism they have been spewing since the beginning of the conflict!!!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 10/23/2006 @ 12:43 am
NYT Public Editor Brian Calame Should Resign…
I was determined to take the whole weekend off from this bloody blog, so I let a Sunday blog swarm pass me by. Time to play catch up.
Background
Back in July, the New York Times decided to run a story on a “secret” government terrorist-f…
Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — 10/23/2006 @ 3:09 am
NY Times Published National Security Secrets To Get Back At the Bush Administration…
We should be thankful that the New York Times decided to undermine the security of the United States in recognition of the hypersensitive fears of foreign opponents of the Bush administration.
……
Trackback by Webloggin — 10/23/2006 @ 3:42 am
Uh. I stated they’re the same. You think i’m wrong about that — that they’re different. I don’t think thats the case. We disagree on this.
But thats different than me stating that I would place one ahead of the other. Do you get that?
I think a EU newspaper could publish this story with much less opprobrium, given the arguable legality of the program there. A program that protects them as well as us. Since a EU newspaper could publish it, I think a US newspaper can do the same — since the results are the same.
But i’m not saying it helps the EU over the US, because it hurts the EU as well as the US. I’m not seeing why this favors them over us.
I do see why it favors open government. And I am in favor of that.
Comment by actus — 10/23/2006 @ 4:41 am
The very idea that ANY media source is or can be unbiased has been absurd from the moment the Political Right started whining about it - yea, from the moment the Political Left started pretending they managed it.
There was a time when the bias of a newspaper was assumed, and people bought that paper according to whether they wanted to read that bias. Thoughtful citizens read two or more papers with two or more biases and figured the truth was somewhere in the middle.
The problem with The Times is not their Liberal bias. The problem with the Times is their assertion that that bias does not exist (and their inability to write for sour apples).
Comment by C. S. P. Schofield — 10/23/2006 @ 5:15 am
Seems clear to me, enjoy your day and good luck. You can even have the last word.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 5:15 am
[...] Patterico puts the case that Byron Calame shoud resign for his appalling performance in the SWIFT matter: Simply put, Byron Calame overlooked (or underweighted) obvious facts, and defended his paper in a knee-jerk fashion, simply because his paper had been viciously attacked by the government. A public editor who cannot objectively evaluate his paper’s behavior in the face of criticism — from any source — should not be the public editor. [...]
Pingback by Dinocrat » Blog Archive » The ombuds-neuter — 10/23/2006 @ 5:18 am
Its amazing how much you want to believe this idea about me that you ignore the words that I write: They’re also concerned about the war on terror too.
It truly is. In some ways I even overstated my case: saying both “also” as well as “too.”
Comment by actus — 10/23/2006 @ 5:19 am
I was one of those saying that Mr Calame shouldn’t have to resign over this (all the way up at comment #14), but I’d like to add one more point. THis entire thread exists because Mr Calame admitted that he’d made an error in judgement, and he even explained his motivations at the time. Fair enough. But, other than the general statements against the Times and its editorial positions, Mr Calame would be enduring none of this abuse (a statement which assumes he has even seen it) if he hadn’t been honest enough to admit it! All he needed to do, after his soul-searching, was keep his mouth shut, and this clamor would not exist.
He came, belatedly, to the position that most of us here took in the beginning; in this case, late is better than never (and nothing). Here is a man, in the editorial offices of The New York Times, who might be a bit more inclined to examine the opposition’s points now — and we want to get rid of him?
Comment by Dana — 10/23/2006 @ 6:11 am
“Elite” Media All But Already Called Result Of November Elections Even Before The Votes Are Casted: They Claim Democrats As Winners!…
Inherent in the mindset of most Democratic “Elitists” is the concept that those of us that live in the so called “Red States that lie between those two thin fringes of “Blue” on either coasts, are nothing but a bunch of uncouth oafs, “clodhoppers…
Trackback by Hyscience — 10/23/2006 @ 6:11 am
Dana,
It’s a good point, and of course the best thing about this is that he admitted his error.
It just seems to me that, for someone to truly carry out the duties of that position, they can’t have the automatic defensiveness he’s admitted to as a character trait.
Comment by Patterico — 10/23/2006 @ 6:14 am
“Its amazing how much you want to believe this idea about me that you ignore the words that I write: They’re also concerned about the war on terror too.”
Actus, your answer was “certainly.” The rest was just you trying to obfuscate and water down the answer.
Comment by sharon — 10/23/2006 @ 6:33 am
What he’s admitted doing is the same as a QA inspector letting a quality problem go by because he’s concerned about the cost to his company of correcting it, or because he’s defensive because his customers have been complaining about the quality of their products.
In fact its exactly analagous to that since in effect Calame is the reader’s only QA rep at the NYTimes.
True, he admits he didn’t do his job. Yes, he makes a lame excuse for that.
IMO though he’s done enough. He admitted he screwed it up and that may make him look more closely at what he’s doing in the future. Frankly, he’s better than the reader’s rep for my paper, who won’t even respond to me as a paying customer.
Remember the environment in which Calame dwells. He’s living in Manhattan and working at the NYTimes with the likes of Dowd and Krugman and Keller. I doubt his readership up there cares about this or thinks this is much of a problem. I think it would have been really easy for him to just forget about this one.
Its really more of an issue for the wires, the other papers around the country that carry NYTimes stories I’d think.
Comment by Dwilkers — 10/23/2006 @ 6:42 am
[...] I was reminded of this idea upon reading NYT ombudsman Byron Calame’s column from yesterday, in which he said that he now believes the New York Times should not have published the Swift terrorist finance tracking story. While I was very disappointed that Calame’s change of heart came four months late and buried deep in his column, at least it appeared in the pages of the paper, and that’s worth something. [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Suggestion for L.A. Times Editors: A Column from the Readers’ Representative — 10/23/2006 @ 6:57 am
As a taxpayer I have an absolute right to know what my government is doing with my tax money.
You already did. It’s called your congressperson and they were advised of the program through the appropriate committees cleared to handle such secrets. In representative republics, we don’t let such idiots as clinically narcissistic nutjobs as you handle national secrets.
Read the Federalist papers. The founders were afraid of people exactly like you. Highly motivated activists who lack competence, rationality and common sense. People like you invite and actively seek tyranny and totalitarianism as a solution to your own confused, poorly run lives.
So just because your personality “condition” prevents you from sleeping while knowing the government has secrets kept from you doesn’t entitle you to run the government for us. Call your Congressperson if you don’t like things. That’s the $0.02 society permits you to have.
Comment by redherkey — 10/23/2006 @ 7:20 am
Good to see all of you on the right hold the first amendment in such contempt. As a taxpayer I have an absolute right to know what my government is doing with my tax money. Secret government programs are for fascist states, not America.
Hahaha, thanks for this idiotic drivel.
It’s always good to start the day off with a laugh.
Comment by The Ace — 10/23/2006 @ 7:21 am
Here’s what Mr. Calame wrote on Oct. 8:
.
Funny, he doesn’t follow his own advice. If memory serves me correctly, his 18 month term expires next month. I think he is clearing his conscience before he departs.
Comment by Corky Boyd — 10/23/2006 @ 7:22 am
Fact is, I am paying for this shit. It is not a “tactical operation” and it is stupid.
Really?
How would you know? Which federal law enforcement agency have you worked for?
Or, let me guess, you were at DIA or CIA before, right?
it’s because his administration dropped the ball and let the 9/11 hijackers in through the front door. In repsonse to that, he and his enablers try to grab more power than they need to cover their asses. Clinton foiled numerous attacks under the existing law
Um, idiot, the 9/11 hijackers were in America planning the attacks before Bush even announced his candidacy for the Presidency.
Further, Clinton “foiled” no terrorist attacks.
Comment by The Ace — 10/23/2006 @ 7:26 am
As a taxpayer I have an absolute right to know what my government is doing with my tax money.
You have no such “right” and in fact even liberal judges recognized the importance of government secrecy, especially in wartime.
Comment by The Ace — 10/23/2006 @ 7:33 am
Whoever leaked SWIFT likely knew if there was any abuse of it.
Calame’s regret is none has emerged. And that the leaker has been or is about to be exposed.
Since he chose to put this out BEFORE the election, something is about to hit the fan.
Comment by steve — 10/23/2006 @ 7:36 am
Bloggers and pundits, liberal and conservative, have no idea what professional objectivity means, so your knee-jerk reaction to this is to flog him. But to flog and call for the resignation of a well-respected, professional person who has the integrity and confidence to admit he was wrong is an example of why civility in our society is dying and hypocrisy is on the rise. If a person, who otherwise does his job well, admits to a mistake, that doesn’t mean he’s no longer fit for the position. He deals with hundreds of issues a month, some probably as integrally linked with our national security as this one, and probably makes assessments you’d agree with frequently. All of you need to unclamp your jaws, take a step back and allow for the humanity of people in public life.
Comment by chelicera — 10/23/2006 @ 8:22 am
#106 chelicera
I don’t think he should be prosecuted, but he should resign. Even his honest admission now is rather dishonest since it is essentially buried in an article titled, “Can ‘Magazines’ of The Times Subsidize News Coverage?” An honest retraction/mea culpa would have put this on the front page where the story first appeared, and titled “We Were Wrong and We’re Sorry!” Now, he only defended the initial publication, so resigning is sufficient (IMO). If he’s dealing with hundreds of issues each month as you posit, how many of those issues are influenced by his personal feelings for the participants of the story?
The ones who made the deliberate decision to publish the story, and the traitor who leaked it in the first place, are another matter entirely.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 8:51 am
Quote: If a person, who otherwise does his job well, admits to a mistake, that doesn’t mean he’s no longer fit for the position. He deals with hundreds of issues a month, some probably as integrally linked with our national security as this one….,
Comment by chelicera — 10/23/2006 @ 8:22 am
Wow Chelicera, great argument! The exact same thing can be said of President Bush, just insert his name in lieu of “a person” in your comment!
On the other hand, the “job so well done” by Byron Calame and his ilk at the New York Times has been to leak classified information on almost a regular basis in order to embarass the Administration irrespective of how it will damage the country or what risks to our troops and our national security revealing such information will pose, to undermine Bush’s policies with a constant barrage of negative, biased, defeatists reporting, and to paint Iraq in the worst possible light they can on a daily basis! I am sure such is considered indeed very journalistically “professional” in its own “partisan,” “biased,” “political-hack” kind of way at the New York Times!
You can almost say that by so vehemently wishing Iraq to fail for over three years now, they have wished it into becoming true: “wish something to be true so intensely and for so long until it indeed does come true”! Of course, all their negative reporting on Iraq has helped them enormously to achieve this apparent feat of leftist, Democrat, “mind over matter,” while providing our enemies and detractors with ample fodder to fuel their “hate America” agendas!!!
Comment by Althor — 10/23/2006 @ 9:15 am
#108
On the other hand, I’ve heard there are some decaffeinated brands that taste just like regular. Just sayin’
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 9:24 am
“Wow Chelicera, great argument! The exact same thing can be said of President Bush, just insert his name in lieu of “a person” in your comment!”
-Althor
Yeah, if he ever admitted any mistakes and did his job well in the first place, this could be said of him…yet it hasn’t. There is no Justice, is there Althor?
Comment by Leviticus — 10/23/2006 @ 9:27 am
Does anyone really think Byron Calame has the professional gravitas to print this confession on his own, in the NY Times, on a topic which revealed a secret government program monitoring big-time terrorist money transfers?
Or is it more probable his evolving position has been the subject of much discussion at the paper’s very highest levels, likely in the presence of a large and well paid legal team?
Can you say, “trial balloon?”
Comment by Black Jack — 10/23/2006 @ 9:43 am
NYT Ombudsman Decides, ‘All Right, Maybe We Shouldn’t Have Run the SWIFT Story’…
Here’s Byron Calame:
My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons…
Trackback by Mary Katharine Ham — 10/23/2006 @ 10:12 am
Mary Katharine Ham…get off the computer and make me a sammich.
Comment by Manly Man — 10/23/2006 @ 12:19 pm
NYT Public Editor Brian Calame Should Resign…
Agreed. Bill Keller shouldn’t be forgotten in the demands for resignations either.
Some mistakes or acts of poor judgment (delayed reaction) are so egregious that even when the right thing is eventually done - the lack of trust in the persons judgment should preclude them from holding the position any longer.
Comment by Athos — 10/23/2006 @ 12:35 pm
You guys don’t see any potential for abuse of a program that allows the government to track the funds of anyone they deem a “terrorist”?
That’s newsworthy, isn’t it?
What are the real terrorists going to do, stop using banks because they know that the government MIGHT be tracking their financial transactions?
What did the article tell them that they didn’t already know?
This all comes back to the idea of a slippery slope that we, as Americans, have to be careful about stepping onto.
Comment by Leviticus — 10/23/2006 @ 1:09 pm
The New York Times and BBC have gone overboard with their bias…
In recent years, The NY Times has become the mouthpiece of the angry left in the US and the BBC is about as anti-Israel as anyone can be.
Patterico has this post on his wonderful blog:
“Today, Byron Calame, the public editor of the New York Time…
Trackback by silvio — 10/23/2006 @ 1:38 pm
Isn’t Mr. Calame saying that it not newsworthy? At least not enough to justify publishing despite the National Security concerns? Your position is the exact same as their initial justification for publishing and they are now saying that justification was wrong. They acknowledge there are sufficient checks and balances to protect American citizens from the abuses that concern you.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 1:52 pm
You got that right Leviticus, but what you don’t understand is that many of the commentors here would love to pour some oil on that slippery slope. They are gleeful over the prospect of being able to lock up liberals, journalists, muslims and people who question authority like you and me. Just look at the rhetoric directed at the NYT and poor arctus here who commited the unforgivable sin of speaking his mind. He is now un-loyal, has no patriotism, should have Big Brother Google make a note of his opinions so he can never get “security clearence”. I imagine our egalitarian friends here also think he should be on the no-fly list and have his phone tapped because al Queda may be calling.
The people here are not so much worried about a slippery slope toward authoritarianism as cheerleaders for its arrival.
Comment by Paul — 10/23/2006 @ 2:29 pm
Anyone who harms national security for political reasons should resign. George Bush, Dick Cheney and crew should set the example and go first.
Comment by charlie — 10/23/2006 @ 2:40 pm
The only leaking of government secrets that is allowed is Cheney leaking through Bob Novak ..all else is treason!!
Comment by charlie — 10/23/2006 @ 2:43 pm
#118 Paul
There is a difference between questioning authority/speaking your mind and actively working against the interests of your own country, or being willing to do so, just because of an irrational hatred and paranoia relating to the current administration. I keep wondering why, if over half the country has been working to establish fascism for so long (according to you and yours, that’s all we long for), you and actus aren’t already imprisoned and being tortured for your heresy. Perhaps because it’s a paranoid fantasy that is all in your head? That slippery slope has been a major Dem talking point for 6 years and more… how slippery can it be if you’re still allowed to speak your mind?
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 2:43 pm
Charlie’s back!!! Hey charlie, how’s it going?
Ignoring trollish behavior.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 2:44 pm
Quote: Yeah, if he ever admitted any mistakes and did his job well in the first place, this could be said of him…yet it hasn’t. There is no Justice, is there Althor?
Comment by Leviticus — 10/23/2006 @ 9:27 am
Leviticus, if by saying there is no justice you mean all the irrational hatred, vitriol, and all the paranoia by such as you on the looney left ever since you lost the 2000 election to this man, I would have to admit that yes, there is definitely no justice for President Bush!!!
He continuously tells the American people how difficult the challenges we face in Iraq are and how we are constantly adapting our strategy to address such challenges more effectively, and you say he doesn’t admit his mistakes?!?! You don’t want president Bush to admit to any “mistakes,” what you want is for him to admit “defeat” to the cut-and-run, insidious, Democratic scandal mongerers; that’s what you want!!!
President Bush has done a far better job on the booming economy Democrats just wish to ignore on these elections - like the “Pink Elephant” in their room - and a far better job of keeping America safe from the ominous terrorist threat we face, and being on the offensive so far, than that cretin Bill Clinton ever did; who you undoubtedly just “adore”!!!
Clinton was so busy sleezily chasing interns, and dousing out all his “flaming” scandals during his term, that he simply did not have the time or the concentration to be overly concerned about something so “mundane” as our “national security”!!!
And look at all that happened or took shape during Clinton’s watch, and under his very own “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” “Pinocchio” nose: From our cut-and-run defeat in Mogadishu, to the bombings of our embassies in Africa, to the Khobar Towers attack, to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, to letting Bin Laden get away the “eight times” - count them, “eight” - Clinton had him in the crosshairs, to all the failures of his
Administration for which we are still paying the price, which ultimately culminated in the attacks of 9/11!!! Not to mention the N. Korea Nuclear Weapons program he not only failed to stop dead in its tracks, but actually encouraged by that fabulous “Jimmy Carter / Madeleine Albright 1994 Treaty” fiasco, which Clinton signed, in which not only did we allowed the North Koreans to develop their nuclear weapons program unimpeded by “inspections” for five years, but furnished them with the technology to do it better, and with billions of dollars in oil, and food aid, which but only helped buttress the failing North Korean regime, and free more of its limited resources to devote to its beligerent nuclear objectives!!!
But of course we shouldn’t blame Clinton for “dropping the ball” on that one, after all, he had Kim Jong-il’s “word” that North Korea was not going to use its nuclear program for “evil purposes,” and you see, it’s all really a misunderstanding, since nuking the U.S. is not
“evil” in the eyes of the North Korean tin-pot dictator!!! Tst, tst, tst!
Now, who has done a better job then?!?! So go ahead and shove it!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 10/23/2006 @ 2:51 pm
Quote: “I imagine our egalitarian friends here also think he [Arctus] should be on the no-fly list and have his phone tapped because al Queda may be calling.”
Comment by Paul — 10/23/2006 @ 2:29 pm
Actually, Arctus has no such thing to worry about…but as for you, I’d be on the lookout for the ambulance with the two white uniformed orderlies holding the straightjacket for the
“Irrational I hate Bush - I hate America violently perturbed”! Be careful, they might pull into your driveway at any time now! Pfff!!!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 10/23/2006 @ 3:07 pm
Quote: Anyone who harms national security for political reasons should resign. George Bush, Dick Cheney and crew should set the example and go first.
Comment by charlie — 10/23/2006 @ 2:40 pm
If it wasn’t for them, you’d most likely be laying under nuclear Jihadist rubble by now along with hundreds of thousands others, you moron! Stop drinking the Democratic “poisoned Kool Aid”!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 10/23/2006 @ 3:12 pm
Stashiu, the fact we are still out talking and walking is certainly no thanks to people with attitudes like yours who equate dissent with treason and being un-patriotic. Thousands of people have dedicated their lives to watching their government and calling out when they see it going too far and the constant refrain from the right is “traitor”, “terrorist-lover”, “no patriotism”, you should know the rest as you seem to take such joy in using them against other people as well as getting your jollies by suggesting Big Brother is watching what we say.
The slippery slope is no myth. America could slip into a totalitarian state as easily as any other country has in the past if people stop paying attention and speaking out.The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Unfortunatly what I see from the right now is blind support for any law or power that would increase the executives authority. Unitary Executive, warrantless wiretapps, detention without trial, Total Information Awareness, executive privelige and secrecy being called more than ever, signing statement on a previous unseen level, over the top rhetoric equating dissent with treason, the closening of ties between big buisness and big govt. are all signs of an increasing authoritarianism weather you are willing to admit it or not. The problem is I think you like it.
The fact that americans still have the freedoms we have is do to brave americans who fight against the excesses of govt. and not those who genuflect and go along.
Comment by Paul — 10/23/2006 @ 3:20 pm
A useful distinction for you to make.
Comment by actus — 10/23/2006 @ 3:21 pm
#126 Paul
Dissent is not treason, disclosing classified information for partisan purposes is. Anyone willing to work towards helping another country while harming ours is unpatriotic. And it’s not Big Brother watching, it’s those pesky background checks if you want to be trusted with classified information. The Executive Branch is supposed to be equal to both the Judicial and the Legislative, not subordinate to them. Does that answer your broad-brush points, and do you question any of that? I’d be glad to hear why.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 3:29 pm
In treason, you have to adhere to the enemy. Partisan purposes means you’re adhering to your party, not the enemy. Thats not treason.
Comment by actus — 10/23/2006 @ 3:35 pm
No, the reason Americans still have the freedoms we do is because of the brave Americans who work to make government better and protect our interests. Dissent is not the highest form of patriotism, despite the popular meme of the left. Dissent is necessary to the process of good government, but is not inherently patriotic or unpatriotic. Dissent in the interest of building better government is patriotic, dissent to tear down adminstrations just because you disagree with them is unpatriotic. Painting anyone who disagrees with you as a fascist brownshirt is just baseless smearing and should be called on it.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 3:37 pm
#129 actus
If the action intended to help your party will also knowingly help your enemy, it’s treason.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 3:39 pm
It doesn’t realy answer any points since I wasn’t asking any questions. You say it is not Big Brother who would go through Google to check peoples comments on blogs to see if they are reliable for security clearence as you suggested to arctus? I guess we have a different definition of Big Brother.
And I would more than love for the executive to be co-equal to the other two branches of govt. but that is not the way our current executive sees thing. They beleive in the unitary executive and that they should not be subject to laws passed by congress that they disagree with or any infringement on thei power which they see as limiting their ability to fight the war on terrorism, which could be anything in their minds.
Comment by Paul — 10/23/2006 @ 3:43 pm
What do you think ‘adhere’ means, as the constitution uses it?
Comment by actus — 10/23/2006 @ 3:45 pm
#132 Paul
I guess so, but how would you suggest background checks be done? I want to be able to trust people given classified information based on more than just their word to “be good”. So do the people doing security investigations, it’s kinda what they’re paid for.
#133 actus
That would be for a trial to decide. I’ve already said I believe anyone who knowingly helps our enemies against our interests would fit. If their actions don’t meet the court’s definition of treason, they are still traitors.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 3:55 pm
Dissent when you have a govt. you beleive to be corrupt and willfully violating the law is not only the highest form of patriotism, it is the only form. If our founding fathers had decided otherwise Tony Blair would now be your leader and he’s one of those european types.
It is just palpable balony to say that todays freedoms come from within the govt. and not from without and shows little understanding of American History. The abolitionist movement, civil rights movement, womens right to vote, one man one vote, and the Bill of Rights and Constitution all come about because of struggles outside the govt. and not from some benevolence from within.
Comment by Paul — 10/23/2006 @ 3:55 pm
What about the constitution’s definition of treason? Did you think about that one, or does everyone get to make up their own?
Comment by actus — 10/23/2006 @ 3:57 pm
Quote: The slippery slope is no myth. America could slip into a totalitarian state as easily as any other country has in the past if people stop paying attention and speaking out.
Comment by Paul — 10/23/2006 @ 3:20 pm
There is a huge difference Paul between “dissent” and “speaking out,” and outright “treason”: “Ading and abetting the enemy” and doing all in one’s power to achieve “defeat” for your own country!!!
But, if Democrats can indulge in their sick “fantasies” by watching “fictional documentaries” on the assassination of President Bush, and or “daydream,” like Cindy Sheehan, to go back in time to kill him before he became President, then I would imagine there is nothing wrong in “fantasizing” on what you just said, and it does just make my mouth water! Hmmm, hmmm:
Imagine, all of our young soldiers returned from Iraq, 150,000 strong, who have constantly been demoralized, undermined, and insulted by vicious barrages from the Democrats and the left, who have called them from “baby killers,” to “murderers,” to having accused them of “terrorizing Iraqi women and children” to calling them “torturers,” not by the fringe far-left fanatics, but by our very own Democratic Lawmakers on the Hill, such as Rep. John Murtha, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Dick Durbin, and others; imagine our young soldires taking over Washington, imposing Martial Law, Suspending Congress, and seeing them round-up all those terrorist loving, traitorous Democratic Representatives and Senators, like Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their aforementioned
traitorous ilk, and having them all interned in bob-wired internment camps, from where they would all face Court Martial for their “treasonous” activities, and be sentenced!
Ah! It’s just a fantasy, but wouldn’t that just be Grand?!?! Seeing all the Democrats in cuffs and shackles, being driven away in military buses! I am sure Michelle Malkin could write another best seller book about it: “In Further Defense of Internment” LOL!
Oh well, back to sad reality!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 10/23/2006 @ 4:05 pm
Stashiu:
I think several points come to mind:
OJ Simpson may not be a murderer in the eyes of the law, but I suspect that few folks would be comfortable with him walking around carrying cutlery. Similarly, while one may be acquitted of treason (or found guilty of a lesser charge), that does not mean the person is not a traitor.
IIRC, Benedict Arnold was never formally tried—does that make him any less a traitor?
As to the disclosure of classified information in an unauthorized fashion, that may or may not be treason, but it is criminal. Said disclosures indicate a treasonable mindset, even if it does not necessarily fit a Constitutional definition of treason (if only because, as per the law, there may not be two witnesses to the act).
Disclosure of said information to a foreign power again may not fit a tight definition of treason, but probably fits most peoples’ normal understanding of the term (betraying one’s nation to a foreign power).
As for Paul’s odd way of characterizing dissent as necessarily patriotic, one need only wonder whether that would apply to decisions undertaken by a Chief Executive that he happened to agree with.
For example, would the actions of, say, the Rosenbergs be less treasonous if they felt that the Truman government was overstepping its bounds in keeping nuclear information classified from a wartime ally?
Might an Aldrich Ames or a Robert Hanssen claim some kind of “dissent is patriotic” argument to justify their activities? Might a Pollard?
More starkly, was the effort of some military officers (and the McCormick Chicago Tribune) to reveal US war plans in early 1941, to reveal US-UK joint warplanning discussions (when the US was still formally neutral), and US Navy activities in the North Atlantic (undertaken in violation of the Neutrality Acts as signed by FDR himself) all examples of patriotic dissent? Or treasonous activity?
Information that is classified is not to be declassified lightly. Certainly not on the basis of the mere opinions of those who disagree w/ the Chief Executive—b/c there are almost always more issues at stake than the politics of the moment. Thus, there are those who are authorized to classify and declassify information.
Failure to take such things seriously may not be treason. But they are and should be treated as criminal.
Comment by Lurking Observer — 10/23/2006 @ 4:10 pm
#135 Paul
Perhaps you should look up the word patriotism. (hint: Love of and devotion to one’s country.) The baloney comes in when you automatically equate dissent with patriotism. Benedict Arnold and the Rosenbergs dissented, they were not patriots.
#136 actus
Traitors are not necessarily guilty of treason actus. Former FBI agent Richard Miller for example. The Constitution’s definition is clear, but applying it to specific cases is for the courts to do.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 4:11 pm
Wow that settles it then!
So clear, but its not the one you’re using?
Comment by actus — 10/23/2006 @ 4:14 pm
#138 LO
Jinx… I owe you a coke since you had the Rosenberg reference posted first, lol. I went with Richard Miller, but considered Hanssen. Why are these concepts so difficult for them to understand? Are they just fanatics who project their own obsessions onto those who think differently? Paul and actus, a betrayal of your country is a bad thing, no matter your justification.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 4:17 pm
#140 actus
If you don’t get it by now, you’re not going to. You’re not making a point, you’re ignoring the explanations. Ignoring trollish behavior.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 4:21 pm
It’s also interesting to consider just how often democracies have become totalitarian states.
In the history of the world, there’ve been very few totalitarian states (for which we should be grateful).
The USSR. Never a democracy (not even the Kerensky government could make that claim).
The People’s Republic of China. The Nationalist government was hardly a democracy. More a weak dictatorship, at best.
North Korea. Never a democracy.
Nazi Germany. This is probably the example most people have in mind. Yet, Weimar Germany was itself a weak democracy at best. This was, of course, compounded by the political actions of not only the Nazis but the Communists and the Social Democrats. The lack of dissent was hardly the problem—Weimar died far more because the various political elements were constantly striving to undercut each other, and each fed the Nazis to aid their own fortunes. But of dissent, there was plenty—until after the Nazis took full power (by which time it was too late).
Iraq, under Saddam Hussein. Hardly a democratic legacy.
Cuba. Batista was a thug, not a democrat.
Yugoslavia? Serbia? Syria? None have a democratic tradition.
One might suggest the eastern European states, but that was a totalitarian system held in place by Soviet bayonets, hardly the same thing as one that rises of its own accord.
Does this mean there’s nothing to fear? Of course not—but it also suggests that the urgent “need” for dissent that some seem to perceive is based upon emotion, rather than an accurate view of history.
That leaves aside, of course, the real question of whether the United States today, even with all the talk of “unitary executive” and signing statements is at all comparable to Weimar Germany or Taisho Japan.
Comment by Lurking Observer — 10/23/2006 @ 4:25 pm
stashiu:
Over at Jeff Goldstein’s blog, the general opinion was “Ignore actus.” The reason was simple:
actus does not argue in good faith.
He will try to derail threads. He will argue over meaningless nits, while ignoring the main issue. And on a new thread, he will rehash the exact same lines and arguments, over and over again, regardless of whether they’d been covered in a previous thread that he himself had participated in.
He’s the sort of fellow who will argue that 2+2 does not always equal 4, because in a base 2 system, it’s actually 100.
actus seems to be the quintessential boor who must have the last word. And having obtained it, is convinced that he therefore has “won.”
To his credit, he’s less quick with the “brownshirt” canard and similar other ad hominem, at least from what I’ve seen of him. In short, a polite troll, but a troll nonetheless.
Comment by Lurking Observer — 10/23/2006 @ 4:31 pm
I would also emphasize that it was precisly that dissent for partisan advantage that enabled the Nazi’s to amass enough political strength and will to take over. Very good points, thank you.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 4:32 pm
Agree completely and have made the same points about actus several times, with the same qualifiers about his calmness. I am just glad to have him on the record as choosing the interests of the EU over those of the US. You are right though. As fun as actus-stomping is, the thread ends up derailed. I will try to limit myself to “Ignore actus” in the future. Not as entertaining, but certainly more honest and efficient. Take care sir(?) and I have really enjoyed your posts, not just today. Let me know when you’re ready for that Coke (or beverage of choice) and it’s yours.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/23/2006 @ 4:39 pm
Yes. You think that one can be a traitor without committing treason. Which is odd.
Uh. I’m on the record as saying they’re the same. You’re on the record as saying they’re different.
Comment by actus — 10/23/2006 @ 5:00 pm
Paul
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I think it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Comment by Darleen — 10/23/2006 @ 5:07 pm
I’m late to the comments here, and I haven’t read all the comments — I admit it — because you’ve been overrun by trolls, or maybe “actus” has learnt how to generate sock puppets.
But I would like to point out that, while the response to the Calame rowback universally notes that it was appended to an “unrelated” column, I’m not so sure it was unrelated.
The point of the earlier part of Calame’s column is that the Times is pushing more “magazines” — basically, he all-but-admits, advertorial content — in order to try to stem the flow of red ink which has led to what he (and no doubt actus and his mini-me “big” johnny) consider a great calamity (not Calame-ity): newsroom layoffs.
Then, he admits that he, nominally the READERS’ representative, was so outraged at the lese-majeste of Times critics that he was too blinded by partisan rage to hear their message.
Byron Calame can’t make the connection between the paper’s insular, one-sided staff and the dwindling readership (and ad revenues). No more, it seems, can anyone in 43rd Street. This bodes ill for a turnaround. If you are a Times writer you might want to keep the personal effects in your desk and cube down to what fits in a single box. If you are a Times stockholder, the SELL light’s been lit since Pinch got the gig. History and science both have cautionary tales of the consequences of inbreeding.
I’m just sayin’.
Comment by Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien — 10/23/2006 @ 5:17 pm
Paul, comment #118, wrote: “They are gleeful over the prospect of being able to lock up liberals, journalists, muslims and people who question authority like you and me.”
Don’t worry Paul. Some of think that “four walls are three walls too many”. (Credit for quote, actus)
Comment by nk — 10/23/2006 @ 5:56 pm
“They are gleeful over the prospect of being able to lock up liberals, journalists, muslims and people who question authority like you and me. Just look at the rhetoric directed at the NYT and poor arctus here who commited the unforgivable sin of speaking his mind.”
Oh, yeah. That’s why with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, we still haven’t managed to “lock up” all you damn liberals. Such incompetence!
Comment by sharon — 10/23/2006 @ 9:53 pm
Stashiu:
Thanks for the kind offer and even more for the kind words and thoughts.
I’d like to pass your offer forward, however. The next time you and your uniformed brethren and sisters are out, perhaps you’d be so kind as to buy one of your fellow servicefolks a drink, and let it be from me?
It’d be a chance for me to show some appreciation to those who are sacrificing on my behalf, at least by proxy.
Comment by Lurking Observer — 10/24/2006 @ 6:30 am
#152 LO
Consider it done sir.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/24/2006 @ 7:17 am
What Leviticus writes:
“if [Bush] ever admitted any mistakes and did his job well in the first place, this could be said of him…yet it hasn’t. There is no Justice, is there Althor?”
What Althor reads:
“I LUV BILL CLINTON HE’S SO GREAT I WANT TO GIVE HIM A GREAT BIG HUG HE’S SO MUCH BETTER THAN BUSH BUSH IS A MEANY I HATE HIM LOL!!!!!!!!!!”
Focus, moron.
Saying that “we are constantly adapting our strategy to address such challenges more effectively” is NOT the same as saying “I made a mistake by going into Iraq. I’m sorry.”
Think of it this way: You break into your neighbor’s house because you want to steal his valuables. He catches you at gunpoint. However, out of the mercy of his heart, he says that he will let you go if you apologize. Now, are you going to say “I am constantly adapting my strategy to break into your house in a more efficient, less noisy manner”?
I doubt it. I doubt even more that anyone would qualify such a statement as an apology.
Comment by Leviticus — 10/24/2006 @ 7:41 am
Althor, for an objective analysis of Bush’s pros and cons go to
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=tictacs
Note to everyone except Althor (and maybe “The Ace”): The aforementioned link is meant to be humorous. As you all know, I am a rational, insightful individual who wouldn’t dream of making such allusions of my own accord.
Objectivity is, of course, paramount.
Comment by Leviticus — 10/24/2006 @ 7:58 am
Quote:
What Leviticus writes:
“if [Bush] ever admitted any mistakes and did his job well in the first place, this could be said of him…yet it hasn’t. There is no Justice, is there Althor?”
What Althor reads:
“I LUV BILL CLINTON HE’S SO GREAT I WANT TO GIVE HIM A GREAT BIG HUG HE’S SO MUCH BETTER THAN BUSH BUSH IS A MEANY I HATE HIM LOL!!!!!!!!!!”
Focus, moron.
Saying that “we are constantly adapting our strategy to address such challenges more effectively” is NOT the same as saying “I made a mistake by going into Iraq. I’m sorry.”
Think of it this way: You break into your neighbor’s house because you want to steal his valuables. He catches you at gunpoint. However, out of the mercy of his heart, he says that he will let you go if you apologize. Now, are you going to say “I am constantly adapting my strategy to break into your house in a more efficient, less noisy manner”?
I doubt it. I doubt even more that anyone would qualify such a statement as an apology.
Comment by Leviticus — 10/24/2006 @ 7:41 am
Let me respond in kind, and see who the real “moron” is!
In the first place, I did not “read” into your senseless diatribe anything more nor less than the habitual “I hate Bush,” “I hate the Administration,” “I hate Republicans,” “I hate America,” “I hate everything,” liberal, leftist, Democratic, “mantra” of talking points mindless dribble we hear day in and day out from irrational “haters” of your ilk! Besides, as much as you may mock, and deny it, I’m sure I wasn’t far off the mark, since in your heart of hearts, I am sure that on any given day there would be far more “grace” in your heart for Clinton, than there ever possibly could be for Bush! So, yes, why don’t you admit that were you to meet with the bastard, you’d tell him how much you love him and give him a great big hug (though if I were you, I wouldn’t shake his hand…lest you get some semen on your hand!)!!!
On the second place, the premises upon which you base you whole fallacious arguments is so demonstrably false that it is appalling! Using such an insane analogy as that “we broke into our neighbor’s house (Iraq) because we wanted to steal their valuables, that they caught us at gunpoint, and that out of the Radical Islamic mercy of their hearts, they will let us go if we apologize” How patently insane is that?!?!
Only in jest, or if someone is “pathologically schizophrenic” (as more and more leftists and Democrats increasingly prove to be) and delud