Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence

The New York Times (Liberal Death Star) ^ | 1/1/06 | BYRON CALAME

[Bell407Pilot]

THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency...................

[68skylark]

I hate this column -- Calame is basically criticizing the Times from the left, wondering why they didn't spill our secrets faster.

[LA Conservative]

The Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column.

[EagleUSA]

The NYT is a classic example of abuse of the First Amendment --- in this case, our strength of freedom is a weakness that permits subversion.

[Steel Wolf]

This was already posted earlier.

[68skylark]

If the writers and editors of today were working during WWII, they'd gleefully print bomber schedules, convoy routes, submarine deployments, and anything else that would get American killed. They'd warn Japan and Germany that we broke many of their codes. They'd print anything to harm the U.S., our troops and our citizens.

[68skylark]

At the outset, it's essential to acknowledge the far-reaching importance of the eavesdropping article's content to Times readers and to the rest of the nation. Whatever its path to publication, Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller deserve credit for its eventual appearance in the face of strong White House pressure to kill it.

I think most normal, patriotic Americans would wonder if it's right to spill military secrets that help the enemy in wartime. But not Mr. Calame.

[ricks_place]

Damning, New York Times executives take the fifth to their own staff. Byron Calame, the NY Times public editor, serves as the readers' representative and he is being stonewalled by his own executives. Bill Keller, the executive editor, and Arthur Sulzberger Jr, Publisher, declined to respond to queries.

[frankjr]

Of course NYT mgmt will not respond...they know they will be dragged into court shortly regarding this case and want to put minimal information into the public regarding their role in releasing this classified info. Of course, they had no problem releasing the classified info itself.

The year long delay in release is strange. Now it makes them look bad from the standpoint it appears that they knew the info was in national security interests...but then they released it anyway.

[bennowens]

Sounds like some jail time comming up soon for some reporters...

[shield]

Hoping Execs of this treasonous rag are in a fed pen for a very long time.

[Brad from Tennessee]

I think the Times had this story (NAS surveillance) or enough facts for much longer than one year. I think they resisted publishing it just prior to the 2004 election because it could have backfired on them and actually helped Bush (as it appears to be helping him now). Also, James Risen was cobbling together a book using about 98 percent ancient history and 2 percent leaks and release of the story needed to coincide with the book's printing. The first Risen story was front-paged the day after the successful Iraqi elections. Times editors, and Democrats, desperately need anything to dampen the good news from Iraq. The hard news component of the Times news room uses information as a political weapon. There is an unmistakable, shameless pattern.

[Uncle Vlad]

This is how the Left is trying to explain the treason of the New York Times.

[Howlin]

The publication of Mr. Risen's book, with its discussion of the eavesdropping operation, was scheduled for mid-January - but has now been moved up to Tuesday.

Big surpise, huh?

[shield]

These guys just keep on pushing. Warnings to them came from the WH...W's televised radio address put all of them on notice. Prison time is ahead IMHO.
W and Co ~ rope-a-dope in play.

[bdfromlv]

they knew about the vote on the patriot act and were probably working with the other communists, oops I mean the democratic party to specifically affect the vote. can you say collusion and treason?

[68skylark]

I think they resisted publishing it just prior to the 2004 election because it could have backfired on them and actually helped Bush (as it appears to be helping him now).

If they were smart enough back in 2004 to foresee a backlash, then they would have been smart enough to foresee a backlash in 2005, and they would have continued to withhold the story. So I can't quite agree with your analysis in this case.

Times editors, and Democrats, desperately need anything to dampen the good news from Iraq.

This has the ring of truth, to me -- liberals see success in Iraq, which is their worst nightmare, coming true. I think they're on a childish campaign to try throwing sand in the gears of national security, doing anything they can to cause harm, so they can then blame the harm on the Administration.

[Brad from Tennessee]

As has been mentioned by others above, the Times also needed to slow down renewal of the Patriot Act. But obviously, publishing this Risen series was a big gamble. They initially gained some negative traction against the Administration because persons in Congress and the media, I believe, were cued to the release of the first story. But now the public seems to be taking the side of Bush and national security. I think the Iraqi elections and Bush's rising poll numbers was definitely a factor here.

[Mike Darancette]

"Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

This is a very frightening statement by the NYT. They are saying that they know more secrets than they wrote about and what they know is even more useful to terrorist (hurtful to the US efforts to stop terrorism on our shores). Does this information consist of agent names, foreign cooperation and methods?

Is this a veiled threat to the Administration to back off any investigation into the leaking of NSA intercepts, "or we will tell all we know and cripple the country's ability to obtain intelligence"?

Whoever disclosed secret information to the NYT should be prosecuted. There is a weak argument that disclosing what was being done is whistle blowing but NOT how we are doing it and by whom.

[fella]

Who said; "We will use their own laws to destroy them."? I believe it was some great progressive leader.