Patterico's Pontifications

6/27/2006

Are the NYT and LAT Editors Starting to Realize They Screwed Up?

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Terrorism — Patterico @ 12:52 am



Do you think the editors of the New York Times and L.A. Times are starting to realize what a big mistake they’ve made in publishing classified details of a legal and effective anti-terror program?

I find a hint of that when I read L.A. Times Washington Bureau Chief Doyle McManus’s June 23 descriptions of how he made the decision to publish, and contrast them with his June 26 description to Hugh Hewitt of how he made that same decision.

On June 23, McManus told the AP that the decision whether to publish was a very tough call. It certainly sounds like a decision his paper made independently, after weighing all the factors:

“It’s a tough call; it was not a decision made lightly,” said Doyle McManus, the Los Angeles Times’ Washington bureau chief. “The key issue here is whether the government has shown that there are adequate safeguards in these programs to give American citizens confidence that information that should remain private is being protected.”

Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the newspaper’s reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview.

“They were quite vigorous, they were quite energetic. They made a very strong case,” he said.

McManus expanded on his logic in an interview with Patt Morrison, transcribed in this post:

MORRISON: Doyle McManus, what kind of standards do you pretty much look at when you’re writing stories about national security? What standards do they have to meet?

McMANUS: Well, in a sense, we reason from the old wartime standard that if there is an ongoing military operation, an ongoing specific intelligence operation or an ongoing criminal investigation, uh, we don’t gratuitously reveal that unless there is a compelling public interest in doing so . . .

Uh, but this was not a single intelligence operation. It was a change in policy. . . . So, it’s — this is a broader issue than an individual operation. In any case, we take the question seriously of whether our disclosure of this policy change and this program will be to the disadvantage of legitimate government efforts against terrorism, and we have to weigh that against the legitimate public interest in knowing whether the government is changing the rules, knowing whether the government is operating within the law, um, knowing what the government is up to.”

Flash forward three days, to June 26, when McManus was asked a similar question by Hugh Hewitt. Now, the essence of his answer was: hey, there was no decision to make. The New York Times had already made it!

HH: Now what I’m wondering, though, is, how did you balance? What probability did you assign to the terrorist attack that doesn’t get stopped because of this story?

DM: Well, I can’t give you a mathematical formula on that. And as a matter of fact, when we made our decision to publish our story, the New York Times had already published its. So as a matter of fact, we had not had the set of discussions that we had scheduled on precisely how to balance that. So in a sense, I can’t tell you how we balanced it, because we ended up not coming to a final decision. Now I don’t mean to be disingenuous. We were certainly leaning in the direction of publishing, but we hadn’t finally decided to.

This is a point that McManus had already made earlier in the interview:

HH: In those meetings that you held, Doyle McManus, did the officials, including Mr. Levey, argue that publishing this information would help terrorists?

DM: They did, although it may be worth noting that by the time we were having our principal meeting with Mr. Levey and his aides, which was a meeting that lasted about 90 minutes, at which we asked them to give us the fullest and best case for not printing the story, they had already concluded that the New York Times was going ahead. And the tenor of the meeting was one in which they took as the context, that the New York Times was going to publish the story. And as a matter of fact, in the middle of the meeting we were having, one of the lawyers looked at his blackberry, and kind of rolled his eyes, and got a message to Mr. Levey, and it turned out the New York Times had posted the story at that point. So at that point, the discussion shifted from their making a case against publishing the story to their making a case…their assumption that at this point, everybody was going to publish a story, and they in fact were quite helpful in filling in some of the details of the program, to make sure we had an accurate story, as you saw later in the news conference that Mr. Levey and Secretary Snow had on Friday, I think.

I don’t mean to use these quotes as a “gotcha!” I take McManus at his word that he is not trying to be disingenuous. I assume that everything he said in all three interviews was accurate and truthful.

But there is an interesting change in emphasis there, isn’t there? On June 23, McManus says: the decision was a tough call. On June 26, he says: so it’s a good thing we didn’t have to make it!

I have every confidence that if a politician backpedaled this obviously, Doyle McManus the veteran Washington journalist would not let it go without mention.

Yeah, I think they’re starting to realize they screwed up.

UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link, and welcome to his readers.

87 Responses to “Are the NYT and LAT Editors Starting to Realize They Screwed Up?”

  1. His only concerned is that the NYT, because it published first, will get the Pulitzer Prize for enabling the enemy to kill Americans.

    Hopefully the families of dead soldiers will start suing the NYT and juries will start treating the NYT like a company that installs asbestos in elementary schools.

    Perfect Sense (024110)

  2. Wishful thinking IMO. Ask yourself if, faced with a similar decision next week, they will decide not to publish.

    They’ve had several opportunities in this area over the last 6 months or so and have decided to publish over strenuous objections from the national security apparatus.

    I think its a fair guess, based on the NYTimes quote I posted in one of the other threads, that the leakers are spilling tons of info on these programs to the reporters. Ask yourself if, based on the experience of the last several months, when in posession of information on other similar programs today opr tomorrow, these guys will decide to keep these secrets rather than publish them. The answer seems obvious to me.

    I can only hope the DoJ is moving mountains to find the leakers. While the newspaper’s behavior is disgusting in this case the leakers are the ones that should be cooling their heels in jail.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  3. I wish someone would ask McManus what *good* comes from publishing this information. I’ve yet to see an answer. The question is important because the press uses “the people’s right to know” as an argument many times in this situation, but they don’t seem to be doing it in this case.

    “The key issue here is whether the government has shown that there are adequate safeguards in these programs to give American citizens confidence that information that should remain private is being protected.”

    This sentence is particularly telling, because it shows that the LAT isn’t concerned that this breech of security could cause more fatalities, but is only concerned with the so-called right of privacy. What a sad excuse.

    sharon (fecb65)

  4. I wish someone would ask (without providing details) if there are any stories, any at all, that they have decided not to run, or if these agonizing decisions always result in running the story.

    DaveG (a721ef)

  5. It’s treason. These guys have broken laws. It’s time for them to go to jail, already. NOW!

    Bostonian (1966cb)

  6. I can see it now:

    Swift Program Accountants for Truth

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  7. Am done with the Times.
    Done with the Post.
    Done with their rancor on my eggs and my toast.

    Done with the Chicks.
    And Hollywood sorts.
    When we all do the same they’ll be in bankruptcy court!

    Webutante (9f37aa)

  8. Murtha/NYT – Harmonic Convergence…

    The stars are aligning (Sorry, don’t mean to stop on your toes, Jerome). That’s the only explanation of the latest revelations in the NYT-treason tale.

    Times Executive Editor, Bill Keller, on CNN to discuss the SWIFT story leaked by……

    Super Fun Power Hour (59ce3a)

  9. The Treasonous Times Must Be Prosecuted! — UPDATED…

    (Scroll down for updates) The New York Times has once again escalated its Journalistic Jihad against the American people, proving beyond all doubt that the Times’ personal interests violently clash with America’s public interest. On Friday, the NY Ti…

    PartisanTimes.com (72c8fd)

  10. Sharon asked: “I wish someone would ask McManus what *good* comes from publishing this information.”

    It makes George Bush look bad. What greater good could even be considered?

    Segesta (ef33f6)

  11. I don’t think they ‘realize they screwed up’. This is because they knew exactly what they were doing.

    They are on the terrorist’s side.

    Until Americans realize that there is a fifth column in our midst that sides with terrorists, we cannot win the WoT.

    Toog (4f1539)

  12. I’ve posted on an earlier thread the suggestion that the DoJ pursue the leakers by putting reporters in front of a grand jury. If they won’t reveal sources, and McManus said that that ‘would be decided later’, let them do a Judith Miller for a few months. The leakers, the absolute traitors, should go to prison for long terms. FDR didn’t prosecute the Chicago Tribune because the Japanese seemed not to be reading it. Now the terrorists not only read it but feed stories and video to the ‘stringers’ who do the reporters’ work in Baghdad.

    Mike K (c09798)

  13. What the NYT has done today is on a par with if, during World War II, they had published the fact that we had cracked the Imperial Japanese Navy codes…

    Actually, during World War II the Chicago Tribune did just that. (Fortunately, it appears the Japanese didn’t subscribe to the Tribune!)

    Old Grouch (0f8f66)

  14. Couldn’t resist writing this:

    From the archives of the N.Y.Times – if it was edited then as it is now:

    London (June 3, 1944) The N. Y. Times has just learned that D-Day is scheduled for June 5, 1944, although it may be delayed one day because of the weather. The attack will take place in Normandy at five beaches that have been called Omaha Beach, Utah Beach, Sword Beach, Gold Beach and Juno Beach.The 82nd Airborne Division and the 101st Airborne Division are scheduled to parachute into Normandy immediately before the invasion. The drop zone is at the base of the Cotenin Peninsula. Casualties are expected to be very heavy. The Omaha Beach landing is expected to be extremely difficult since it will, in all probability, be opposed by the best of the German coastal defense divisions. We wish our brave soldiers good luck as they face this perilous operation. We anticipate that there will be over 10,000 casualties on the first day in Franklin’s War. (Ed’s Note: We know this is highly classified information, but we feel the public has a right to know) Please see the attached map for more detailed information, and “good luck” to all of the brave troops who will be participating. (Ed’s Note: While we oppose the war, we fully support our troops) We wish them well.

    eGrumps (852738)

  15. Hate to say it, much as I dislike the bastards, but it’s self-defeating to want the press to adhere to the same standards as either the government or your generic responsible citizen. They’re journalists, folks. Scum. The lowest of the low. Like lawyers and such. You want to wash your hands after shaking hands with one. But — and here’s the catch — they are useful. They do help prevent government abuse of power, just the way those scum class-action plaintiff’s lawyers do, occasionally, help prevent corporate wrong-doing.

    So it’s no good hoping journalists are going to grow a spine and a conscience. That’s just not the nature of the breed. They’re junk-yard dogs. You’ve just got to expect that. So, solutions there are two: (1) nail the bastards inside government who leaked. Knowing that the journalists are always going to publish, whatever the consequences, means it’s time to get serious about holding government employees to their contract. (2) let’s here no more fatuous garbage about the sacred Fourth Estate and its rights and privileges. They’re bottom feeders, no better than (and in some ways worse than) porn merchants and Internet spammers. They are to be tolerated for the occasional good they do, but we need not respect them.

    Sponge Bob (39a15f)

  16. The story made me pale. My family endangered by an academic insistence on using the First Amendment simply because they can? LAT may as well insist on the “right” to urinate in a public pool or call 911 to get the cat down from the tree. Sure you can. But no responsible adult would. Who “needed to know” that the US was monitoring financial transactions in some Euro financial hub? Who in any closed society will ever help the CIA for fear of being outed by some editor who “can?” Where is 10% of the outrage the LAT showed over the innocuous disclosure of back office agent Plame? The LAT’s overreaching grab for support in the 1969 outing of the Pentagon Papers is unalloyed nonsense: those didn’t compromise ongoing operations and the government’s feeble claim then to “national security” does not excuse the LAT from a good faith evaluation of it now–givig it at least as much deference as it might to a new claim of exculpatory evidence for Tookie Willaims might have received. Appalling.

    Frank Drebbin (bb7b00)

  17. Sponge Bob has nailed it. Roast, fry, and otherwise carbonize those who leaked. Nothing can be done about journalists, because they are already in hell…just think about their plight – no brains, no morals, no ability to do anything useful, and too obnoxious even to go into politics.

    Da Coyote (a3c869)

  18. This is the e-mail I have sent to everyone I could find at the NYT.

    Dear Sirs,

    I have a question about the display of awards at the New York Times.

    When you get your Pulitzer Prize for treason will you put it next to the Pulitzer Prize that Will Duranty got for betraying some thirty million Ukranians?

    Will you feel any shame for your complicit support of mass murderers and those who will blow themselves up to commit mass murder?

    After 911, your paper demanded that the government stop the flow of money. Now, when the government does it, you do everything you can to help the terrorists.

    I know that thirty million Ukranians on the other side of the world mean little to New York Times employees, will the deaths of Americans mean as little?

    The press used to know that loose lips sink ships, when did you lose awareness of this truth?

    Do you not realize that the Islamists who attacked us again and again really do want to kill you?

    I have a list of all of the e-mail addresses if you want them.

    punslinger (ba56cc)

  19. Perfect Sense
    It’s sort of insidious. The NYT publishes a story that they hope will get them a Pulitzer. In the process aids the terrorists to set up the next big strike and kill more Americans. Then they can write a story about the next big terrorist attack and maybe get a Pulitzer for that too.

    John Steele (eb204a)

  20. It’s time to put pressure on the advertisers. Simply refuse to buy from their advertisers. The stock went from about $50 to $25 over 30 months. There isn’t much keeping it from collapsing.

    MarkD (c88314)

  21. This was the last straw for me.

    My next subscription check to the Boston Globe (a NY Times Co. paper) will be my last, and this is going in the payment envelope.

    I’ll have to settle for printing out the online Globe editorial articles myself for my parrot to use as a toilet from now on.

    Dave (5d3fab)

  22. Just wait until there is a terrorist attack in the US — I hope the victims sue the hell out of the NYTimes et al. and/or they arrested as accessories/co-conspirators.

    Bpbatista (9913b0)

  23. […] Have truer words ever been written? For more on the Times, check out Patterico …the fabled Good War – belongs to another time. A simpler time. It is probably something that only exists in the rearview mirror anyway. […]

    Pundit Review » Blog Archive » A great column about The Good War (4e1ab9)

  24. I’ve posted the logos for every advertiser on today’s NYT homepage. It took some time, but I linked the logos to email addresses and/or comment forms for each advertiser.

    Feel free to jump in to help persuade these advertisers to defund the Al Qaeda Information Agency.

    http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/Somerschool/157827/

    Scott W. Somerville (49dea0)

  25. This all brings us to this Truman era law

    Section 798. Disclosure of classified information

    Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
    transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
    or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
    interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
    government to the detriment of the United States any classified
    information concerning the communication intelligence activities
    of the United States or any foreign government

    Give ’em hell Harry !!

    Neo (cba5df)

  26. I wish someone would ask McManus what *good* comes from publishing this information.

    Bush looks bad, and they win Pulitzers. And Bush looks bad.

    It’a all upside, baby!

    RMc (9a0e90)

  27. this is a tough case because both sides in their own crazy way have a point – freedom of the press should never be limited, and there is a clear and present danger posed to the citizens of the US if the government can not conduct any secret activites. It makes the search for those wishing to hurt us just that much harder. While I agree with the New York Times in that if the government is engaged in illegal or questionable activites it’s their duty to report on it as responsible journalists. But is the New Yourk Times staffed with responsible journalists or just glory hounds looking to attack a president they hate, hard to tell sometimes.

    What it boils down to is if the government doesn’t want these stories ending up on the newspapers do a better job of stopping leaks. Also the New York Times needs to show restraint in sensitive matters and only report real scandals as opposed to hunting for fame (I agree this is a real story that needed to be told so this is a bad example). The MSM is full of head hunters looking for book deals and will do anything to break a story that will generate a little fame, enough for them to become famous and ink a million dollar book deal. As for Bush he’s begining to push the boundaries between sensible and 1984.
    http://yeahpolitics.blogspot.com/

    KYpundit (3ff991)

  28. Bush looks bad, and they win Pulitzers. And Bush looks bad.

    Does it make bush look bad that he is running a terrorist surveillance program with privacy protections?

    actus (ebc508)

  29. For whatever it’s worth, I heard someone from the LAT making the same point about being beat to the punch by the NYT on the Diane Rheem show last week. He was talking about how they were meeting with the Treasury Dept folks about whether to publis. He said that in the meeting, one of the T-Men got an email on his blackberry that the NY Times had published.

    Doesn’t change the nature of their actions at all, but it lends weight to the credence of what he’s saying now.

    [Like I said, I take him at his word that it happened that way. I just think that, as time goes on, he seems to be emphasizing the “it was out of our hands” aspect more and more, as this increasingly begins to resemble a trainwreck. At least, that’s how it seems to me. I could be wrong. I’d love to hear that show, btw; perhaps I’ll hunt for it later. — Patterico]

    NC Yankee (414e1c)

  30. The Wall Street Journal published the same information: why don’t you criticize them?

    wm13 (9e48ff)

  31. “and there is a clear and present danger posed to the citizens of the US if the government can not conduct any secret activites.”

    The govt can’t conduct *any* secret activities. But there isn’t any story here. The activities in question were not legal, were subject to Congressional oversight, and were narrowly tailored to specific persons suspected of terrorism and/or terrorist links. And it had been successful. The NYT and LAT decided it was a story because it hadn’t been splattered all over their pages for terrorists to read about and try to avoid.

    “Does it make bush look bad that he is running a terrorist surveillance program with privacy protections?”

    Nope. But those skilled wordsmiths do their damnedest to make it seem that way.

    sharon (03e82c)

  32. The leakers must be the target. Andrew McCarthy outlines a good strategy to find them. The Plame case established a recent and highly visible precedent with the public (it’s funny how these things work out.) It’s not even necessary to prosecute the leakers, it’s only necessary to discharge them so they can’t do any more damage. Yeah, they will probably go on the lecture curcuit, but so what. From what seems like the volume of leakers, there will be plenty of competition.

    Aubrey (b34465)

  33. (3) “I wish someone would ask … if there are any stories, any at all, that they have decided not to run … .”
    Well, there were the Mohammed cartoons.
    Hmm. It appears that the NY Times does respond to credible threats of violence. Perhaps this is a communications problem on our end. We are not getting through to them.

    Jim,MtnViewCA,USA (57b078)

  34. Nope. But those skilled wordsmiths do their damnedest to make it seem that way.

    How?

    actus (ebc508)

  35. “How?”

    Words.

    sharon (03e82c)

  36. Words.

    I know. Which ones.

    actus (ebc508)

  37. I don’t think Bush does look bad. In fact, he looks better than he has for a long time. The NYT’s own article reported that the program is legal, and comes with considerable safeguards. What’s curious is how the NYT staff has taken the “Watergate” mindset to its most absurd length, well beyond the point where it makes sense. They thought that the mere existence of a secret program like this would make Bush look bad EVEN IF there was nothing illegal or even ethically questionable about it. Finally, they’ve completely lost their grip on any reality beyond that of the Upper West Side Sunday brunch. It’s blowback for these papers I think, so it is all upside, just not in the way the poster above seems to think.

    Lisa (091794)

  38. They thought that the mere existence of a secret program like this would make Bush look bad EVEN IF there was nothing illegal or even ethically questionable about it

    How do you know they thought this?

    actus (ebc508)

  39. I suspect we’ll learn the ‘leakers’ were a couple of European bankers.

    Bush allies trying to sanction the NYT will inadvertantly expose chronologies of the SWIFT program’s operation. The Navy’s repeated efforts in 1942 to punish the Chicago Tribune actually increased the chance that the Japanese might discover clues to our codebreaking.

    This isn’t a debate about how to balance our government’s duty to protect us and our desire to keep its nose out of our business.

    It’s a war whoop.

    steve (db6ba8)

  40. I live in an area where there is no radio reception, but yesterday was my day off and I was in my car in a city where Hewitt’s program is broadcast. I heard the interview with McManus, and listening is very different from just reading the transcript. I got the impression that he is *very* sorry that they published, not so much from his words, but from his hesitations and tone of voice. As for Keller and Sulzberger, they’re such arrogant SOBs that they’re incapable of being sorry. I also heard Jay Rosen, and he was surprised that the NYT actually published, and thinks that Keller needs to do a lot of damage control, minus the arrogance.

    Maggie45 (6d0b8c)

  41. Sounds to me like the LAT is having second thoughts.

    The NYT is another matter.

    Crank (3fed2a)

  42. Sorry friends, what we have here is espionage. Sure it’s hiding behind the 1st Amendment, which seems to mean to journalistsstss that they can publish any ‘secrets’ in time of war that they wish, using freedom of the press as cover (or the ‘public’s right to know’).
    During WWII they would have been arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.
    {I give up on your site, since your blog list impinges on your comments and your own observations, cutting off the last words of each sentences. Adios, won’t be back. G

    G. R. Leonard (e269e5)

  43. Does anyone else have that problem?

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  44. “I got the impression that he is *very* sorry that they published, not so much from his words, but from his hesitations and tone of voice.”

    Aw, bless his heart. That does a lot of good, doesn’t it?

    “I know. Which ones.”

    The ones in the article.

    sharon (fecb65)

  45. Does anyone else have that problem?

    Not I.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  46. Methinks Mr. Leonard is a bit touchy, based on the way he expressed his complaint. I’m not sure I’ll miss having him here.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  47. steve says:

    This isn’t a debate about how to balance our government’s duty to protect us and our desire to keep its nose out of our business.

    It’s a war whoop.

    This statement is the left’s equivalent of the right’s insistence that the journalists involved aren’t trying to do what they think is the right thing — they’re trying to help Al Qaeda.

    I think you’re a journalist scrambling for any way to put a good face on what is clearly an indefensible decision by the media.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  48. What a bunch of wimps you fear-mongers are…

    To this day, a handful of thugs are making you hysterical. There were only about 11 people who actually carried out the plane bombings, remember? You’re going to give up freedom after freedom because of a handful of demented people? You’ll let them control you that way?

    So, what else are we giving up? Are our medical records next? Or are they already secretly hidden away by our increasingly fascist rulers? Where does all this stop? What other forms of Big Daddy Government are staring over our shoulders? Utterly Wimpy! Until they’re bombing every major city of ours every day, I would rather be a brave, proud American!

    No wonder Limpbaugh has to use Viagra.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  49. So, what else are we giving up? Are our medical records next?

    Next thing, prosecutors will be able to obtain medical records for criminal cases, using only subpoenas that aren’t reviewed by judges or grand juries!!!!

    Oh wait — we already do, all the time.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  50. Sharon:

    Aw, bless his heart.

    That’s Southern for:

    Fuck him.

    Xrlq (2656a4)

  51. Psyberian:

    Until they’re bombing every major city of ours every day, I would rather be a brave, proud American!

    Er … you do realize that “bravery” and “bravado” are not synonyms … right?

    Xrlq (2656a4)

  52. If the NY Times and the LA Times had done anything for which they could be prosecuted, I expect that officials would have told them in advance.

    However, any reporters who know the government source should go to jail until they give up the source.

    Steve O (2bae87)

  53. If the NY Times and the LA Times had done anything for which they could be prosecuted, I expect that officials would have told them in advance.

    I have made the points that 1) Treasury is not Justice, and 2) they probably didn’t want to seem overbearing. Threatening prosecution would be waving the red flag at the bull.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  54. Maybe I am missing something, but didn’t the LA Times do this only after it was clear that the NYT was going to do this. That said, the LAT just isn’t blameworthy in my mind, in this. I have alot of complaints about the LAT, too, to the point that no one can cite the LAT for any factual proposition for me, in a verbal fight. Its in the doghouse like CBS news, the BBC, and so on. But this isn’t one of those things i would even bother to including in my mental indictment of them.

    Or do i have the facts wrong?

    A.W. of Freespeech.com (af4ca9)

  55. A.W.:

    See this post of mine for the explanation of why the LAT is culpable.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  56. I believe they ve broken the laws and need to be punished, that’s wild and barbarian act on their part. Immediate action, NOW !

    Georgealan (24ec5a)

  57. “Until they’re bombing every major city of ours every day, I would rather be a brave, proud American!”

    Another candidate for the human shield initiative in Iraq. Go stand and be brave!

    Me? I don’t have anything to hide in either my medical records or financial ones. I don’t support terrorists.

    sharon (fecb65)

  58. Patterico, to you there is no difference between the FBI or CIA having access to everyone’s medical records and your getting the medical records of suspects for a criminal case?

    It’s not false bravado X. What is the probability of al Qaeda hurting or killing in the next week? In the next year? There’s not much of one. Wake up man, you don’t have to be so brave.

    Sharon, you don’t even get it do you? The point is not whether you have anything to hide or not. You don’t mind a creepy government constantly leering over your shoulder? Privacy is not only for the guilty you know.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  59. “Sharon, you don’t even get it do you? The point is not whether you have anything to hide or not. You don’t mind a creepy government constantly leering over your shoulder? Privacy is not only for the guilty you know.”

    Please, Psy. I’m well aware of privacy rights. But the argument that it is an intrusion on your privacy rights, particularly since you have *zero* in international transactions, is a red herring. You aren’t worried about terrorist attacks? Well, I guess that just shows what a bang-up job George Bush is doing in protecting you from terrorists. If your biggest concern is that terrorists’ banking transactions aren’t private, I guess we are pretty safe. But I’m sure you’ll be the first to denounce the President if and when there is another attack.

    sharon (fecb65)

  60. It’s not false bravado X. What is the probability of al Qaeda hurting or killing in the next week?

    Not terribly high, but hardly negligible, either.

    In the next year?

    Highly probable. Have they ever gone a year without striking somewhere? The only way they’ll go longer than that is if they’re planning something really big, on the scale of 9-11 rather than the usual incidents where they kill “only” a few hundred at a time.

    It’s a bit tougher to measure the probability that a key individual involved in that particular strike will be someone who we would have caught but for the Times’s treasonous story, but just because these odds are difficult to measure does not mean they are remote.

    There’s not much of one.

    It would be nice if everyone who defends the NYT would be as forthright as you are about not taking terrorism seriously. In any event, while the odds of any given individual falling prey to a terrorist are small, there’s a hell of a lot more risk of another 9-11 than there is of the U.S. turning into evil fascist empire because the would-be watchdogs in the press stopped trying so hard to uncover every clandestine anti-terrorist operation. That you seem to think Republicans are a greater threat to America than al Qaeda is, I find disturbing indeed.

    Sharon, you don’t even get it do you? The point is not whether you have anything to hide or not. You don’t mind a creepy government constantly leering over your shoulder? Privacy is not only for the guilty you know.

    Give me a break. For as long as I can remember, the average American can’t even transfer more than a paltry $10,000 abroad without having to declare it. This program involved purely international transfers of large sums of money. You, Sharon, I, and just about everyone else in this thread has a zero privacy interest in the programs in question. All we do have – or perhaps I should say, all we did have until the NYT took it upon itself to shut it down – was an interest in catching the bastards who would kill us, sooner rather than later.

    Xrlq (ad170a)

  61. Psyberian interests are personal. He’s afraid some overzealous government puke will notice his rather largish ATM withdrawls on fridays and then figure out that’s when he buys his weekly bag of weed.

    I think he’s watched “Brazil” too many times.

    Chris (aa1f80)

  62. I'm a bit behind the news cycle here, but……

    …from Powerline, Senate Asks for Leak Damage Assessment:Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, asking him to investigate and report on the damage done by the med…

    protein wisdom (c0db44)

  63. […]  Patterico notices Doyle McManus is changing his story.  I have every confidence that if a politician backpedaled this obviously, Doyle McManus the veteran Washington journalist would not let it go without mention. […]

    The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » Congress to Condemn New York Times (4e8dcb)

  64. Round the Reader – Well it is Edition……

    Happy Thursday!!

    We had to put the old dog “to sleep” today. Strange way we humans deal with killing our pets. We don’t even call it killing. We put them “to sleep.” Really what happens is the vet gives the dog/cat a drug that stops their heart…

    Speed of Thought... (59ce3a)

  65. […] And indeed that’s the strange thing about Richard Clarke’s op-ed appearing in the Times. As Patterico already noted, the Timeses are aware they’ve shot themselves in the foot with their disclosure. Now Richard Clarke is downplaying both the significance and the secrecy of their findings. Strange, huh? A paper that has won Pulitzers for its past exposures of American military and intelligence secrets, suddenly eager to publish someone saying, “Oh, this? It’s no big deal. Really. Wasn’t that big a secret. Hell, my grandmother knows SWIFT monitors international terror-linked financial transactions and shares the information with the CIA!” […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » (See-Dubya) Arguing in the Alternative–Clarke says Times Was Just Blowing Smoke (421107)

  66. Sunday Funnies…

    image courtesy of faithmouse
    Blonde Sagacity has comic relief.
    Potfry reports on GE’s newest innovation.
    The Nose on Your Face has the yoga champions.
    Point Five reports on the SCOTUS decision rebuking Bin Laden for overstepping executive auth…

    Stop The ACLU (aa6604)

  67. The problem with the comments being cut off by your sidebar is a problem with the guy’s web browser, or his display settings. It’s not your website.

    Craig C (35a2ab)

  68. Just mark it down as another nail in the dimocrats coffin. If an attack of any kind occurs before Nov., Jesus Christ himself couldn’t get elected as dogcatcher on the dimocratic ticket. Just watch the dimocrats, they know for a fact the NYT/LAT have put them in a no win situation. They bluff and bluster but the look on their faces and tone of their defeat and retreat voices tell the story. One more leak by the dimocrats of top secret information and they’re done for the next 20 years.

    Scrapiron (a90377)

  69. If an attack of any kind occurs before Nov., Jesus Christ himself couldn’t get elected as dogcatcher on the dimocratic ticket.

    The republicans control both houses of congress, the courts, and the executive. Yet, if there’s an attack, its the democrats fault. Makes sense.

    actus (6234ee)

  70. It sure does, when the Democrats in charge of the newspapers sabotage every effort made by the Republican Administration to fight terror and prevent these attacks.

    Patterico (2586cd)

  71. It sure does, when the Democrats in charge of the newspapers sabotage every effort made by the Republican Administration to fight terror and prevent these attacks.

    Every effort? Wow.

    actus (6234ee)

  72. Also, remember you bitching about “GOP vs. NYTimes.” well, here it is:

    It sure does, when the Democrats in charge of the newspapers sabotage every effort made by the Republican Administration to fight terror and prevent these attacks.

    actus (6234ee)

  73. Less than one month after the war on terror began stories about government crack downs on Islamic money tranfers began. Most Americans were comforted by thses stories. Most of the prosuctions were performed under the authority of the Sept. 23 01 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Below I post a link from a 11/01 story from a suburban chicago paper about the Barakaat wire transfer company. I also list a link to a Department of the Treasury official statement about the illegal money transfers. I found these links by performing a simple google search for illegal Islamic money tranfers. Should the New York Times refrain from publishing this information when others have been publishing information for years? Just because the New York times is widely read (more widly read than official treasury department statements) does not mean that it should stay silent.
    Andy from Mass.
    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/focus/terrorism/archives/1101/w08raids.html
    http://www.ustreas.gov/rewards/pdfs/terroristlists/list4.pdf

    Andy (3a7f5e)

  74. Actus, was your rhetorics teacher Louis Farrakhan?

    nk (d5dd10)

  75. Hey, it’s Andy, the caller from the Pundit Review Radio program! Good to have you here — really. I’m being sincere. The Pundit Review guys told me at a break that they kept you on for a while because you seemed like a fair-minded guy. That’s the kind of reader I want here.

    Look, I didn’t have a chance to read through all your linked materials yet, but I searched for the word “Swift” and didn’t see it. Will you acknowledge that these stories didn’t mention Swift?

    Patterico (2586cd)

  76. Also, remember you bitching about “GOP vs. NYTimes.” well, here it is:

    It sure does, when the Democrats in charge of the newspapers sabotage every effort made by the Republican Administration to fight terror and prevent these attacks.

    That’s the NYT targeting Republicans. Not the other way around. But see, actus, when the NYT sabotages an effort to fight terror — even one by a Republican Administration — it hurts all Americans. Even Democrats.

    And when the next terror attack happens, due to the efforts of Democrats at the NYT, you can’t blame the Republicans.

    So yes. The NYT is targeting Bush because he’s a Republican. But it’s not just the GOP that’s appalled by the paper’s actions. That’s the point that everyone not blinded by partisanship can see.

    Patterico (2586cd)

  77. I would trust a jury on this one. Just a jury of peers, to determine if disclosing secret programs critical to the War on Terror, was a crime. These journalists live in a bubble where there are no consequences for their actions. Maybe a jury of their fellow citizens should decide.

    Rob (2793e3)

  78. Andy, comment #73: One good link deserves another. Click here for why the NYT are hypocrites who do not want to admit the President can do anything right.

    nk (d5dd10)

  79. That’s the NYT targeting Republicans. Not the other way around.

    Thats you seeing it via a partisan lens. The lens of “GOP vs. NYtimes.”

    And when the next terror attack happens, due to the efforts of Democrats at the NYT, you can’t blame the Republicans.

    Believe me, the groundwork for the Dolchstosslegende is well laid. “as if on cue.” No need to have access to classified information about all the GWOT — you know, in your heart, as if on cue — that its all been ruined by the democrats.

    But it’s not just the GOP that’s appalled by the paper’s actions.

    Then why do you say this is blamed on the democrats?

    actus (6234ee)

  80. Thats you seeing it via a partisan lens. The lens of “GOP vs. NYtimes.”

    Right. Because the papers aren’t publishing these stories a part of a theme about Bush’s overreaching. Got it.

    Believe me, the groundwork for the Dolchstosslegende is well laid. “as if on cue.” No need to have access to classified information about all the GWOT — you know, in your heart, as if on cue — that its all been ruined by the democrats.

    All your silly lefty points are as if on cue too. Who’s calling your shots — or at least appearing to?

    Then why do you say this is blamed on the democrats?

    It’s blamed on the Democrats at the NYT. Different.

    Patterico (2586cd)

  81. Right. Because the papers aren’t publishing these stories a part of a theme about Bush’s overreaching. Got it.

    Is that partisan? I mean, I don’t think its endemic to republicans to overreach. Do you?

    It’s blamed on the Democrats at the NYT.

    Ah. So people won’t be blaming democrats. They’ll blame the NYtimes, rather than the people in power. And yet its a lefty point to mention this “stab in the back” myth? Or righty? Who knows.

    But I’ll say who is silly. The one who thinks that “every effort” has been sabotaged.

    actus (6234ee)

  82. What privacy??? My medical records now are seen by my insurance company. At age 65 by the Government Medicare program. Bank records? IRS? Loan applicationss from Federally insured banks? Employment applications ? Phone records? You’re crazy if you think you have privacy. The question is what is done with these records. If it’s used to combat terrorism fine; if it’s used for improper purposes or publicized (e.g. Limbaugh’s prescription, then there is a problem.

    Fred of Del Mar (6589ab)

  83. Maybe if SECDEF Dummy and his a$$hat generals were not so busy prosecuting American GIs everytime a hadji or an MSM reporter levels a false accusation at them, the Bush Administration could find the time and energy to start prosecuting the leakers and their MSM enablers. But, hey, prosecuting GIs is easy, as they are under orders and obedient — and it makes the MSM happy. Prosecuting leakers to the NYT, on the other hand, might take a little effort and would not play well with Time/Newsweek. I have no use for SECDEF Dummy and his Perfumed Princes (generals and admirals) and their Marquis de Queensbury Rules of Engagement and their feminized strategy/tactics in both Iraq/Afghanistan. If these men(and ladies!) had been in charge during WWII, the Poles would be speaking German today. What the NYT/LAT did was despicable, but it does not absolve the Defense Establishment of their guilt of failing to fight this war all out. — gunjam

    gunjam (5f6753)

  84. Is it not possible for a US citizen to bring a ‘private prosecution’ against the NYT, citing the 1953(??) Act relating to unlawful publication of electronic intelligence information?

    Here in New Zealand, an enterprising fellow has launched such a prosecution against the Prime Minister whose loyal police force found nothing to prosecute after the Chirf Electoral Officer had found what amounts to a prima facie case of embesslement of nearly half a million dollars of public money for illicit electioneering.

    Adolf Fiinkensein (c254f1)

  85. […] Patterico has noticed a shift in tone at the LA Times as well. […]

    politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » More about the NYT Times mess (ef3398)

  86. You have very interesting site!
    Respect you!
    http://louisellipsehandbag.iespana.es

    Michael (dcdbbf)

  87. Nielson/NetRatings has issued a study showing that the top 10 social networking sites saw traffic grow 47% over the last year, with MySpace seeing the biggest growth (367% increase) and MSN Spaces (286%) seeing the biggest growth. Hosted blogging systems were included in the study.

    One thing to note about those numbers is that while Classmates had one of the lowest positive growth rates at 10%, they spend loads on advertising while MySpace, Youtube, and Facebook haven’t spent a penny.

    If I recall correctly, a couple years ago Classmates.com was one of the 10 largest spenders on online advertising.

    There are plenty of new social networking sites poping up but what get’s me why can’t myspace there instant messenger working. $580 mill and can’t afford to fix instant messenger BAD myspace.
    There are so many better ones how about http://cubiclelife.net for example has all the features of myspace plus quizzes, polls, webchat with audio and video oh and hey they have instant messenger. You have a long way to go myspace.

    [IMG]http://seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seekingalpha/images/socialnetapr06.jpg[/IMG]

    dannyObanny (6e7696)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1262 secs.