Friday, June 23, 2006
Waging war on the war
Glenn Reynolds has a round-up of links and reactions to the latest decision by the editors of the New York Times to compromise national security, this time by exposing a perfectly legal program for tracking financial transactions that might be keeping the jihadis armed and dangerous. As I am sure all our regular readers can predict, I think that this behavior on the part of the Times is outrageous. It seems to have stretched to the breaking point the modern idea that legality and morality are coextensive.
There is simply no way to conclude, as the Times avers, that exposure of this program is more in the public's interest than tracking the flow of jihadi money. The truth is, there are but two reasonable ways to characterize that paper's behavior. First, perhaps it is only acting as any profit-maximizing business would. Well, if that is an acceptable defense for its behavior, then the Times might want to lighten up on the sanctimony in the rest of its business coverage. As Glenn wrote, "The press is much harder on other businesses that sacrifice the public interest for profits."
Second, perhaps the paper (and its sympathizers) want to oppose all efforts to fight the jihadis. Glenn again:
What's interesting to me is that when you talk about military force, we're supposed to use law-enforcement and intelligence methods instead. But if you use law-enforcement and intelligence methods, people shout "Big Brother" and the Times runs stories exposing them.
This, I think, is the heart of the matter. The chattering left, to which the Times particularly caters, is not just opposed to the military element of the Bush administration's "forward" strategy. It is opposed to all programs, military or otherwise, to track down and apprehend terrorists that do not meet some Warren Court standard for procedural probity. There can only be three explanations for this. First, these critics of the left do not believe that prevention of attacks requires any tactic that is different from the capture and prosecution of criminals who have already committed a crime (or, perhaps, they imagine some acceptable yet innovative tactic that the Bush administration is too incompetent to have implemented). Second, they do not care whether these programs will work, only that the Bush administration be embarrassed. Third, they want the jihadis to evade capture, probably because they have persuaded themselves that the United States will torture them in Gitmo, or actually innocent people will be swept up in the dragnet and we will torture them. Is there a fourth possibility?
Mike Wallace famously popularized the idea that reporters must be "journalists" without regard to their duty as citizens. I have long argued that this ethic is cancerous, and has done more to undermine the credibility of journalism than to sustain it. However, if journalists actually feel this way, may I suggest that we create a special opportunity for them to renounce their citizenship. That would save them the humiliation of traveling abroad under their American passport, remove any possibility that they might taint their objectivity by voting in our elections or contributing to our political campaigns, and absolve them of any feeling of guilt they might feel -- heh -- for having betrayed American national security.
6 Comments:
By 
Lanky_Bastard, at
Sat Jun 24, 02:21:00 AM:
It is said of pornography that people know it when they see it. Can't we have the same standard for "betrayal of national security"? Assuming you and Glenn are too morally offended to link to the article in question, you still might reference a title or author so that your readers could actually find and read the article to decide for themselves. Is it appropriate to smear the NYT without any quotes, context, or reference? (PS: Quoting Glenn Reynolds doesn't count.) Readers need a context to know whether you're an upright citizen or an uptight citizen.
Of course, people don't always know "betrayal of national security" when they see it. Many have supported the efforts of the White House to expose a CIA asset who had worked on WMD proliferation in the Middle East. Intel is about sources and contacts, and Plame's outing was bad for business. Those who worked with her may have been exposed or compromised, and if nothing else her exposure is likely to limit the trust that potential resources might place in our confidentiality. Not everyone agrees her outing was against US interests. Some people save up their moral indignation for whatever the president tells them to get upset about.
Back on topic, I'm totally open to the Times being bad guys (it's not my paper of choice). And now I'm interested in reading this salacious piece. So what's with the tease? Where's the article?
By Cassandra, at
Sat Jun 24, 07:56:00 AM:
First, these critics of the left do not believe that prevention of attacks requires any tactic that is different from the capture and prosecution of criminals who have already committed a crime
Ah.
That no doubt explains all the hysteria surrounding certain provisions of the Patriot Act, which notably were taken from already existing techniques used against organized crime all the time, without a whimper from these morons.
It never seems to occur to these people that any law enforcement is corrupt enough to abuse these tactics, they are corrupt enough to fake enough evidence to make someone look like a mobster instead of a terrorist, and so make those Patriot Act provisions superfluous.
The NY Times and the anti-war crowd continue to insist on a "transparency and oversight" whose true purpose is to make anti-terrorism transparent, not only to the terrorists, but to the anti-war crowd.
Even when, as with the financial tracking thing, we act within the law, the Times exposes it anyway.
That was never the concern. Stopping the war and embarrassing the adminstration are, and the calls for transparency and oversight for the most part are just a means of making those attacks easier. The financial tracking program had three levels of oversight built right into it, and it's legal.
That doesn't stop the Left from outing our attempts to combat terrorism.
By Cassandra, at
Sat Jun 24, 09:53:00 AM:
Many have supported the efforts of the White House to expose a CIA asset...
And the big argument against *that* happening is that it would "damage national security".
Most of the same people who made such a big deal over outing of a CIA agent who had so little regard for her own cover that Martin Peretz of liberal The New Republic, as well as several others, stated that "everyone in Georgetown knew who Plame worked for" long before her supposed "outing".
These same folks, who pretend to be so outraged about national security that they go ballistic about the "outing" of a minor CIA functionary see no problem with the outing of entire CIA operations.
So much for national security and the importance of keeping secrets.
So which is it, folks? Is national security only a concern when, by mouthing platitudes you don't believe, you can damage the Bush administration?
Or will you finally put your money where your mouth is and condemn Bill Keller's arrogant assumption that he has the right to disobey the law because he doesn't agree with it? Once again, if there were concerns about this, Keller could have reported the program to the Intel Oversight Committee AS THE F**KING LAW REQUIRES.
But no. You see, Keller is the decider - an unelected jerk with no oversight and no accountability.
And your future is in his hands America.
By 
, at
Sat Jun 24, 09:59:00 AM:
To Lanky_Bastard:
Please drop the Lanky from your nick so it will suit you better !
If you need a reference to find a NY time article published on a particular day, in addition to removing Lanky from your nick please replace it with STUPID. That will suit you even better!
I apologize for my comment but I just could not resist making some remark on the shining intelligence and striking honesty of Lanky's comment
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Sat Jun 24, 10:45:00 AM:
Sirius,
I'd rather not go off-topic, but a transcript of the special prosecutor is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
"In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."
Sorry for not hyperlinking it, I never learned HTML. Yes, STUPID, I know.
Stupid_Bastard
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jun 24, 06:02:00 PM:
That brings up something I've been musing lately...
"I do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
When are some of these assholes going to be strung up as the law requires? Freedom of the press is not freedom to publish anything you want ever, else Classifications and federal laws against releasing and/or publishing them (not to mention things like libel, sedition, and copyright laws) would not exist.
