Blogosphere Excels in Reaction to Keller Letter
The blogosphere did a bang-up job today reacting to Bill Keller’s silly missive in defense of publishing classified details of an effective counterterrorism program. Rarely have I been prouder to be associated with such a group of clever folks — all giving world-class opinions for free!
I can’t give you every good link out there, but here are a few that caught my attention:
For those short on time, Wizbang admirably summarizes Keller’s letter:
Dear Reader:
1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.
2) We have every reason to believe it was effective at catching terrorists.
3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.
Bill Keller
Tom Maguire wonders just whose reaction Keller values:
[J]ust what is the feedback loop here? My guess is that Keller keeps score by counting how many times he is lauded for his courage at cocktail parties in the Hamptons, but maybe it is not that scientific.
Blog posts about Keller’s letter got extra points in my estimation for mentioning the Hamptons, that symbol of rarefied elitism. iowahawk continues that trend. He has found the first draft of Keller’s letter, which opens:
With my hectic schedule of Pulitzer committees and Columbia Journalism School symposia, I don’t always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands. Lord knows I’ll be in the Audi headed to a Friday night ACLU cocktail benefit in the Hamptons when my Blackberry starts beeping and I have to pull over on the Long Island Expressway, and it turns out to be a text message from some idiot in Wistucky bitching about the last Krugman column. But our story about the government’s surveillance of international banking records has generated a few questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I’d like to offer a personal response. I’ll type v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so you morons with questions and concerns finally understand.
Speaking of satire, See Dubya had an excellent satirical piece of his own.
But for my money, as is so often the case, some of the best expressed and most on-target sentiments came from one of my very favorite bloggers (if not my very favorite), Allahpundit, in this post. Here’s a taste:
It’s absurd to think the public should have to ratify every action the executive undertakes. They’ve already granted him a measure of trust by electing him. Keller thinks Bush squandered it, though, on bad pre-war intel and the NSA warrantless wiretaps, such that now his relationship with the public has changed from president and electorate to suspect and grand jury — with the media in the role of independent prosecutor, naturally. We’ve done some discovery, Keller’s saying, and while you may decide not to return an indictment over the SWIFT program, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t see the evidence. (And if there happen to be terrorists on the grand jury, more’s the pity.)
His concept of the media’s relationship with the administration is thus explicitly adversarial. He even hints at a boxing metaphor in his letter, describing the press and the government as proceeding “from opposite corners.” Imagine: we’ve got two and a half years more of war to fight under Bush, and the executive editor of the New York Times is telling you he sees his job as obstructing the government even when it hasn’t done anything wrong. Dan Rather said last week that he doesn’t want reporters to practice journalism differently from the way it was practiced in Edward R. Murrow’s day. Does he really think this is how they did it during World War II?
And since when is the Times worried about preempting the electorate, anyway? They didn’t mind preempting our right to pass judgment when they refused to publish the Mohammed cartoons. Where was Independent Prosecutor Keller in that case? Hiding under his desk and dumping in his pants, that’s where.
It’s more direct, more entertaining, and more dead on target than anything you’ll read in the newspaper about this sad affair.
And Hot Air also has video of Tony Snow and the President denouncing the newspapers’ irresponsible decision.
These are terrible days for Old Media, as exemplified by Keller’s pathetic letter. But these are also great days for New Media, as exemplified by the thoughtful and funny posts quoted above.
Thanks a lot, Patterico. Much appreciated.
Allah (4ba106) — 6/26/2006 @ 6:29 pmComfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
actus (6234ee) — 6/26/2006 @ 7:07 pmComfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
The only problem with that old cliche is that those who advocate it consistently misunderstand who exactly is the afflicted and who is the comfortable.
JVW (d667c9) — 6/26/2006 @ 7:12 pmThats right. I forgot. The government decides. We follow.
actus (6234ee) — 6/26/2006 @ 7:16 pmThats right. I forgot. The government decides. We follow.
No no, some unelected bungholes in an office in Times Square or on Spring Street should be making these decisions. At least I can vote for the members of government — I have never been asked who should be the editors and publishers of any of the major newspapers.
JVW (d667c9) — 6/26/2006 @ 7:26 pm[…] Patterico has a more satirical view of Bill Keller’s response with Blogosphere Excels in Reaction to Keller Letter The blogosphere did a bang-up job today reacting to Bill Keller’s silly missive in defense of publishing classified details of an effective counterterrorism program. Rarely have I been prouder to be associated with such a group of clever folks — all giving world-class opinions for free! […]
FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Global War on Terror Watch: United States Treasury Secretary Snow Responds to Bill Keller of the New York Times (baa0b4) — 6/26/2006 @ 7:33 pmWe all do. There are many decisions made at many margins. Some are decisions by the NYT to publish. Some are decisions at places like the Washington Post to publish even more. Some are decisions by the government to have a classified program with belgian banker and Booz Allen accountants. Some are decisions by the LAT to publish after the cat is out of the bag. Some are decisions by people to link to these stories, make a lot of noise, and stop subscribing to some of these newspapers, but not the one that originally published the story.
actus (6234ee) — 6/26/2006 @ 7:34 pm“actus,” I’m sure you’re a nice lad to have a beer with.
But this topic is like the electoral college—it’s not as confusing as you want to make it out to be.
Essentially, the media do not have the right to publish classified information. The President reserves the right to de-classify documents—not the LA or NY Times.
And “yes,” as much as you distrust the government, they were elected to prosecute the war, as is the case with every elected administration preceding Bush 43—that is how our republic and Constitution work.
That fact may anger you, but it is indeed, a fact.
You certainly may be comfortable with terrorist organizations knowing precisely how we are tracking them, but many of us feel if we maintain the element of surprise, it will yield a higher success rate.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 6/26/2006 @ 7:58 pmI just dont think its that simple, under our system, our constitution.
I don’t think they know precisely how we’re tracking them. I do think they might reason, as a court would, that they don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial transactions, though.
actus (6234ee) — 6/26/2006 @ 8:09 pmWell, besides statutes, there is the first amendment. Patterico earlier linked to some people talking about first amendment values, but not really an analysis. I don’t think the analysis is simple. It cant be as simple as “Congress shall make no law.”
I’d imagine ther are lots of ways of tracking terroirsts, financial or not. And the terrorists dont know exactly how these work.
actus (6234ee) — 6/26/2006 @ 8:37 pmThe world doesn’t run on your imagination, actus. Catching terrorists–preferably before they strike–depends on the programs our government and like-minded governments put in place. Program exposed, program’s usefulnes gone. How convenient to your comfort that you are able to “imagine” a bunch more stuff going on that the terrorists don’t know about. Isn’t imaginary stuff that you don’t know about what you usally get ticked off about? Now it turns out you’re actually relying on it to catch terrorists. Enjoy that cake, man, it looks to be the kind that’ll always be there when you’ve eaten it.
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/26/2006 @ 8:41 pmI’d say htey’re not just doing what the people in power tell them. And last I checked, its not the terrorists in power. But its an old quote apparently they tell kids in journalism school. Who knows if the NYT is operating under it.
To tell you the truth, I’d imagine that they subpoeana financial records.
actus (6234ee) — 6/26/2006 @ 8:49 pmIs it time to put the list of NYT advertsiers above the fold?
wizard61 (ec9715) — 6/26/2006 @ 9:01 pmWell, I don’t know if my idea has been suggested by someone else, but if the Bush Administration is really unhappy with the NYT, why don’t they ban the NYT from government briefings and contacts?
The Times thrives on criticism from Bush. It validates them in the eyes of their public. So Tony Snow can write all the letters he wants and it won’t do any good (I suggest Snow’s letter to Keller is already framed on Keller’s wall).
But kicking them out of the White House, the Pentagon and elsewhere can do some good. Kick their reporters out of Iraq (or at the least, refuse to support and protect them). Order all federal employees to have no contact with anyone from the NYT. No more invites to State Dinners. No more riding on Air Force One. How can the NYT be the ‘paper of record’ if they’re not there when the record is being written?
If Bush is truly upset over what the NYT did (and, for what it is worth, I have my doubts), then it is high time he started acting like it.
And, fwiw, Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich did something similar, and which was upheld by a panel of a federal appeals court… so there is some precedent for this.
Anybody else think this might do some good?
steve sturm (d3e296) — 6/26/2006 @ 9:12 pmWe all do. There are many decisions made at many margins. Some are decisions by the NYT to publish. Some are decisions at places like the Washington Post to publish even more. Some are decisions by the government to have a classified program with belgian banker and Booz Allen accountants. Some are decisions by the LAT to publish after the cat is out of the bag. Some are decisions by people to link to these stories, make a lot of noise, and stop subscribing to some of these newspapers, but not the one that originally published the story.
actus’s disingenuous crap (” Some are decisions by the LAT to publish after the cat is out of the bag.”) about the ever-so-innocent LAT disemboweled here. I’ll quote one sentence from my lengthy comment:
All stupid one-sentence actus responses to this comment are hereby referred to the above link, where they are answered and then some. I’m not playing the “let actus run my life” game tonight. See the link.
And yes, you can bet that I’d unsubscribe from the NYT now, were I unfortunate enough to have been a subscriber to begin with. Your utterly dishonest implication to the contrary.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/26/2006 @ 9:18 pmWhat terror group would NOT know banking transaction data are shared between governments when it’s laid out for them on U.S. government websites:
http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2004/Sep/22-862152.html
And SWIFT’s role was disclosed almost six years ago:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/reports_of_us_monitoring_of_sw.php
steve (db6ba8) — 6/26/2006 @ 9:24 pmOn how many threads will I have to respond to the same argument?
As I said here:
There is a difference between such a report and the front page of the NYT. Also, there is a difference between a blog and the front page of the LAT — which renders absurd Bill Keller’s whine that conservative blogs are repeating his blockbuster story. As if the terrorists will miss it on the NYT front page, but will pick it up on Patterico.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/26/2006 @ 9:31 pmWhat the govt link said (in 2004) is that terrorists are relying less on banks because they know they’re traced. Thats not an obscure report that is letting the terrorists know. That’s the US govt saying the terrorists already know. Which minimizes the change from these latest publications.
actus (6234ee) — 6/26/2006 @ 9:45 pm“There is a difference between such a report and the front page of the NYT.” – Patterico
It tends to undermine Treasury’s case that this was a precedent-setting, “blockbuster” disclosure.
“Yeah. And they caught Hambali in August 2003.”
Yeah. And Sec. Snow says the terrorists were then forced to hand-carry “wads of cash” across borders. Banking surveillance is quite a reasonable and worthwhile security precaution. The State Department site linked above conveniently drops hints for all aspiring jihadists.
The program was known to many foreign banking and government officials. Its existence is nothing the terrorists couldn’t have guessed.
This is becoming an overplayed tantrum.
steve (db6ba8) — 6/26/2006 @ 10:08 pmThis is becoming an overplayed tantrum.
That’s what you would fervently like it to be. But it isn’t.
Another case in point, from the WSJ story:
Impossible. An obscure U.N. report had mentioned it six years ago. And the terrorists are all geniuses who, like Allah himself, are everywhere and know everything.
So it just can’t compute that it yielded useful information since July 2005.
Keep spinning, guys. Keeeeeeeep spinning.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/26/2006 @ 10:21 pm“I just dont (sic) think its (sic) that simple, (sic) under our system, (sic) our constitution.”(sic)
Feel like making an argument, or are we supposed to accept your assurances on faith?
Federal Dog (9afd6c) — 6/27/2006 @ 4:26 amMy blood runs cold when I think of where we would be today without the blog movement.
Kudos to all the above bloggers for their outrage, humor, and legal analysis (esp. Patterico).
Patricia (5b7822) — 6/27/2006 @ 12:12 pmThat’s a moral code???? Are you serious????
It is a great illustration of what’s wrong with the Left side of the aisle.
Phil (f0d73f) — 6/27/2006 @ 12:15 pmMy argument that its not that simple? Well, its that its complicated. The constitution says “congress shall make no law” and then there are various first amendment cases that develop that. What level of scrutiny would this get? Probably strict. What other means does the government have? etc…
actus (ebc508) — 6/27/2006 @ 12:40 pmAs if in answer to my last post…
The New York Times once again undermines our ability to fight these fanatical freaks by disclosing details of another way we track them — a way that has yielded results in captured terrorists as late as the middle of last year, and that’s just ones ….
philmon (59ce3a) — 6/27/2006 @ 12:55 pm