Sunday, August 26, 2007
Press immunity, telecom immunity, and the curious position of the New York Times
As a service to my readers, I pumped myself up this morning to read the Grey Lady's editorial on "illegal domestic wiretapping." Mostly it was the usual stuff. This bit, though, is arresting:
Mr. McConnell said telephone companies turned over call data to the National Security Agency without a court order, which may be illegal. He revealed this while praising Congress for giving the telecoms immunity from lawsuits or criminal sanctions if they continue doing that. Now, he said, Congress should absolve the companies retroactively. That would be a nice twofer: protect a deep-pockets industry that may have broken the law, and cut off judicial scrutiny of Mr. Bush’s decision to ignore FISA in the first place.
So, the New York Times believes we should prosecute telecom companies that in good faith give data to the National Security Agency during wartime, notwithstanding that they only "may" have acted unlawfully and never mind the subsequent act of Congress that gives those companies immunity for future such actions.
Interesting. Contrast this to the demand of the Times that Congress enact a federal press shield law. Its own "deep-pockets industry" apparently should get immunity for breaking the law, even if it subverts national security. The Times' position is, therefore, essentially this: If you help the government fight the war and in so doing "may" have violated the law you should not get immunity, but if you -- not actually meaning "you," but "they" -- subvert the government's prosecution of the war in the name of the public's "right to know" they should have immunity.
3 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Aug 26, 01:19:00 PM:
We can all vote with our money, when it comes to the NYT, and not buy the paper. Until Erich Lichtblau, James Risen, their editors and, of course, the Sulzbergers are all fired by new owners I go elsewhere for my news.
Andrew
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Aug 26, 07:14:00 PM:
Telephone companies are mere tradesmen - peasants, really - and cannot be expected to understand the important issues involved. The NYT, however is a synonym for Journalism, which is a synonym for the public's right to know, which in turn is a synonym for True Freedom Under Elites.
When all the rationalizations and evasions are stripped away, this boils down to the belief that the writers of the Times know better than the president, or the judges, or the legislature, what is good for the people.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Aug 27, 09:49:00 AM:
No, the New York Times believes that if ANYBODY takes any possibly illegal actions to support the war, they should be held vulnerable to hordes of trial lawyers, but if you oppose the war and take actions that are most certainly felonies then you should be given a pass.
It’s a generalism normally expressed by fanatics, since we are on the sides of angels, we can do no wrong and our enemies can do no right. The only way the NYT will ever be on our side is if the FBI defuses a terrorist nuke in the basement of the Times building live on national TV because of an international phone intercept. That might win positive coverage for a day or two.
