Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House condemns media over reporting (However, doesn't name names like the NY Times and others)
AP on Yahoo ^ | 6/29/06 | Jim Abrams - ap

Posted on 06/30/2006 10:00:34 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON - The House on Thursday approved a Republican-crafted resolution condemning news organizations for revealing a covert government program to track terrorist financing, saying the disclosure had "placed the lives of Americans in danger."

The resolution, passed 227-183 on a largely party-line vote, did not specifically name the news organizations, but it was aimed at the New York Times and other news media that last week reported on a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorists.

Most Democrats opposed the measure, protesting language in it that asserts that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was "rooted in sound legal authority" and that members of Congress had been appropriately briefed on the program.

While the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal also carried stories on the program, Republicans singled out the New York Times.

"The recent front-page story in the aforementioned New York Times cut the legs out from under this program," said the Financial Services Committee chairman, Rep. Michael Oxley (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. "Now the terrorists are well-informed of the details of our methods and will find other ways to move money outside of the formal financial system."

The administration and the 9/11 Commission "went to the New York Times and asked them in the interest of national security not to release the details of this program," said Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. "They went ahead and did it anyway."

The Times has defended its reporting, saying publication has served America's public interest. Its executive editor, Bill Keller, said in a statement after the House passed the resolution that the paper took seriously the risks of reporting on intelligence.

"We have on many occasions withheld information when lives were at stake," Keller said. "However, the administration simply did not make a convincing case that describing our efforts to monitor international banking presented such a danger. Indeed, the administration itself has talked publicly and repeatedly about its successes in the area of financial surveillance."

The resolution "condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information" and "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program."

Democrats reacted angrily to the GOP majority's refusal to allow them to offer an alternative that would also have expressed concerns about the unauthorized leak of classified information but would have left out language defending the legality of the program.

"What you have done is to hijack the virtually unanimous support for tracking terrorist financing into an endorsement of the way the Bush administration has conducted itself," said Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., author of the alternative.

"It is a campaign document," said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

"There's never been any oversight of the program," she said. "You are asking us to vote on something that we absolutely cannot attest to."


The resolution is H. Res. 895.


On the Net:


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: condemns; congress; house; hr895; media; nytimes; reporting

1 posted on 06/30/2006 10:00:38 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I have a question for anybody out there. I keep hearing liberals ask the question "Why are those who object singling out the NY Times in this case, when others like the LA Times and the WSJ also printed details of the case?"

I haven't heard anybody reasonably answer the question yet. Is it because the NYT printed it first, and the other papers only repeated what the Times wrote? Or is there some other reason that the Times was more culpable than other papers?

2 posted on 06/30/2006 10:02:42 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead

Hey, as long as this story stays in the news somehow, I think the heat will stay on the Slimes. More heat! More heat! More heat!

3 posted on 06/30/2006 10:03:35 AM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

Wow. Not even as much as I expected.

During our discussion yesterday, I could swear that this resolution, according to some, was going to be a big problem because the NYT was going to be named, and that earlier resolutions had lead to invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and yadda, yadda.

4 posted on 06/30/2006 10:04:39 AM PDT by Madeleine Ward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: austinaero
I love bashing the NY Times! Here's my take on publisher Pinch:

I just don't want to let any other media outlets off the hook if they share guilt.

5 posted on 06/30/2006 10:05:30 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dead

The NY Slimes leaked this out first, then the others .

6 posted on 06/30/2006 10:05:35 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dead

7 posted on 06/30/2006 10:07:12 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dead

True. However, bashing the Slimes is not letting the others off the hook. First things first and the Treasonous Terrorist-loving Times is the first one to do the deed, and is STILL defending it, albeit their excuses are changing on a daily basis.

We'll get to the rest of them eventually. That's why the continued heat is a good thing.

8 posted on 06/30/2006 10:07:27 AM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Madeleine Ward
Not even as much as I expected.

Of course the Times wasn't named. Damned politicians are happy to have our brave military sacrifice for them, but they are cowards in the face of the media. No real men in Congress.

9 posted on 06/30/2006 10:09:31 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Refute the Drive-By Media. Sí, Se Puede!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dead

Fit and Unfit to Print
What are the obligations of the press in wartime?

Friday, June 30, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

"Not everything is fit to print. There is to be regard for at least probable factual accuracy, for danger to innocent lives, for human decencies, and even, if cautiously, for nonpartisan considerations of the national interest."

So wrote the great legal scholar, Alexander Bickel, about the duties of the press in his 1975 collection of essays "The Morality of Consent." We like to re-read Bickel to get our Constitutional bearings, and he's been especially useful since the New York Times decided last week to expose a major weapon in the U.S. arsenal against terror financing.

President Bush, among others, has since assailed the press for revealing the program, and the Times has responded by wrapping itself in the First Amendment, the public's right to know and even The Wall Street Journal. We published a story on the same subject on the same day, and the Times has since claimed us as its ideological wingman. So allow us to explain what actually happened, putting this episode within the larger context of a newspaper's obligations during wartime.

We should make clear that the News and Editorial sections of the Journal are separate, with different editors. The Journal story on Treasury's antiterror methods was a product of the News department, and these columns had no say in the decision to publish. We have reported the story ourselves, however, and the facts are that the Times's decision was notably different from the Journal's.
According to Tony Fratto, Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, he first contacted the Times some two months ago. He had heard Times reporters were asking questions about the highly classified program involving Swift, an international banking consortium that has cooperated with the U.S. to follow the money making its way to the likes of al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Mr. Fratto went on to ask the Times not to publish such a story on grounds that it would damage this useful terror-tracking method.

Sometime later, Secretary John Snow invited Times Executive Editor Bill Keller to his Treasury office to deliver the same message. Later still, Mr. Fratto says, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the leaders of the 9/11 Commission, made the same request of Mr. Keller. Democratic Congressman John Murtha and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte also urged the newspaper not to publish the story.

The Times decided to publish anyway, letting Mr. Fratto know about its decision a week ago Wednesday. The Times agreed to delay publishing by a day to give Mr. Fratto a chance to bring the appropriate Treasury official home from overseas. Based on his own discussions with Times reporters and editors, Mr. Fratto says he believed "they had about 80% of the story, but they had about 30% of it wrong." So the Administration decided that, in the interest of telling a more complete and accurate story, they would declassify a series of talking points about the program. They discussed those with the Times the next day, June 22.

Around the same time, Treasury contacted Journal reporter Glenn Simpson to offer him the same declassified information. Mr. Simpson has been working the terror finance beat for some time, including asking questions about the operations of Swift, and it is a common practice in Washington for government officials to disclose a story that is going to become public anyway to more than one reporter. Our guess is that Treasury also felt Mr. Simpson would write a straighter story than the Times, which was pushing a violation-of-privacy angle; on our reading of the two June 23 stories, he did.

We recount all this because more than a few commentators have tried to link the Journal and Times at the hip. On the left, the motive is to help shield the Times from political criticism. On the right, the goal is to tar everyone in the "mainstream media." But anyone who understands how publishing decisions are made knows that different newspapers make up their minds differently.
Some argue that the Journal should have still declined to run the antiterror story. However, at no point did Treasury officials tell us not to publish the information. And while Journal editors knew the Times was about to publish the story, Treasury officials did not tell our editors they had urged the Times not to publish. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a "leak," it was entirely authorized.

Would the Journal have published the story had we discovered it as the Times did, and had the Administration asked us not to? Speaking for the editorial columns, our answer is probably not. Mr. Keller's argument that the terrorists surely knew about the Swift monitoring is his own leap of faith. The terror financiers might have known the U.S. could track money from the U.S., but they might not have known the U.S. could follow the money from, say, Saudi Arabia. The first thing an al Qaeda financier would have done when the story broke is check if his bank was part of Swift.

Just as dubious is the defense in a Times editorial this week that "The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals." In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements. They are America's main weapons.

The Times itself said as much in a typically hectoring September 24, 2001, editorial "Finances of Terror": "Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities." Isn't the latter precisely what the Swift operation is?

Whether the Journal News department would agree with us in this or other cases, we can't say. We do know, however, that Journal editors have withheld stories at the government's request in the past, notably during the Gulf War when they learned that a European company that had sold defense equipment to Iraq was secretly helping the Pentagon. Readers have to decide for themselves, based on our day-to-day work, whether they think Journal editors are making the correct publishing judgments.

Which brings us back to the New York Times. We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters.
As Alexander Bickel wrote, the relationship between government and the press in the free society is an inevitable and essential contest. The government needs a certain amount of secrecy to function, especially on national security, and the press in its watchdog role tries to discover what it can. The government can't expect total secrecy, Bickel writes, "but the game similarly calls on the press to consider the responsibilities that its position implies. Not everything is fit to print." The obligation of the press is to take the government seriously when it makes a request not to publish. Is the motive mainly political? How important are the national security concerns? And how do those concerns balance against the public's right to know?

The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.

So, for example, it promulgates a double standard on "leaks," deploring them in the case of Valerie Plame and demanding a special counsel when the leaker was presumably someone in the White House and the journalist a conservative columnist. But then it hails as heroic and public-spirited the leak to the Times itself that revealed the National Security Agency's al Qaeda wiretaps.

Mr. Keller's open letter explaining his decision to expose the Treasury program all but admits that he did so because he doesn't agree with, or believe, the Bush Administration. "Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress," he writes, and "some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight." Since the Treasury story broke, as it happens, no one but Congressman Ed Markey and a few cranks have even objected to the program, much less claimed illegality.

Perhaps Mr. Keller has been listening to his boss, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who in a recent commencement address apologized to the graduates because his generation "had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.

"Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way," the publisher continued. "You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights," and so on. Forgive us if we conclude that a newspaper led by someone who speaks this way to college seniors has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.

In all of this, Mr. Sulzberger and the Times are reminiscent of a publisher from an earlier era, Colonel Robert McCormick of the Chicago Tribune. In the 1930s and into World War II, the Tribune was implacable in its opposition to FDR and his conduct of the war. During the war itself, his newspaper also exposed secrets, including one story after the victory at Midway in 1942 that essentially disclosed that the U.S. had broken Japanese codes. The government considered, but decided against, prosecuting McCormick's paper under the Espionage Act of 1917.
That was a wise decision, and not only because it would have drawn more attention to the Tribune "scoop." Once a government starts indicting reporters for publishing stories, there will be no drawing any lines against such prosecutions, and we will be well down the road to an Official Secrets Act that will let government dictate coverage.

The current political clamor is nonetheless a warning to the press about the path the Times is walking. Already, its partisan demand for a special counsel in the Plame case has led to a reporter going to jail and to defeats in court over protecting sources. Now the politicians are talking about Espionage Act prosecutions. All of which is cause for the rest of us in the media to recognize, heeding Alexander Bickel, that sometimes all the news is not fit to print.

10 posted on 06/30/2006 10:09:48 AM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Excuse me, but shouldn't we be finding out and condeming the leakers?

11 posted on 06/30/2006 10:13:52 AM PDT by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead

There is an issue with targeting legislation. You want to make the law apply equally, not just address the misbehavior/criminality of one (no matter how egregious the one), else the law will be judged to be specifically targeted and ruled unconstitutional.

There's a word for that which escapes me at the moment.

12 posted on 06/30/2006 10:15:31 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dead

Yeah, I don't want to let other media outlets off the hook either, but I LOVE bashing the NY Slimes most of all! They suck.

13 posted on 06/30/2006 10:16:54 AM PDT by blitzgig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Thank you. That was very illuminating and exactly what I was looking for!

14 posted on 06/30/2006 10:18:00 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: austinaero

Will the House and Senate have the guts to actually name the Times on both coasts?? If so, I would be glad to get reved up on this issue. We bloggers write and complain but the Congress seems spineless on this as well as the NSA spying travesty. Let them name names and prosecute the rats.

15 posted on 06/30/2006 1:27:21 PM PDT by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

Bill of Attainder?

16 posted on 06/30/2006 5:59:02 PM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Killborn

exactly! Many thanks!

And have a glorious Fourth!

17 posted on 07/04/2006 6:05:01 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow

YOu are welcome. Same to you. :)

18 posted on 07/04/2006 10:06:12 AM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson