NYT editors puzzled by argument against them


Jersay
#1
NEW YORK - The New York Times is defending itself from criticism about a report on secret financial monitoring of terrorists, saying it found arguments by Bush administration officials against publishing it "puzzling" and "half-hearted."

ADVERTISEMENT

In a note on the paper's Web site Sunday, Executive Editor Bill Keller said the Times spent weeks discussing with Bush administration officials whether to publish the report.

He said part of the government's argument was that the anti-terror program would no longer be effective if it became known, because international bankers would be unwilling to cooperate and terrorists would find other ways to move money.

"We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling," Keller said, pointing out that the banks were under subpoena to provide the information. "The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere."

The note to readers was published the same day Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record) urged the Bush administration to prosecute the paper.

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," the New York Republican told The Associated Press.

Keller said the administration also argued "in a half-hearted way" that disclosure of the program "would lead terrorists to change tactics."

But Keller wrote that the Treasury Department has "trumpeted ... that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash."

Stories about the money-monitoring program also appeared last week in The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times. But King, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he singled out the New York paper because it also disclosed a secret domestic-wiretapping program in December.

He charged that the paper was "more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people."

King said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times — the reporters, the editors and the publisher."

King's action was not endorsed by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania.

"On the basis of the newspaper article, I think it's premature to call for a prosecution of The New York Times, just like I think it's premature to say that the administration is entirely correct," Specter told "Fox News Sunday."

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Treasury officials obtained access to a vast database called Swift — the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The Belgium-based database handles financial message traffic from thousands of financial institutions in more than 200 countries.

Democrats and civil libertarians are questioning whether the program violated privacy rights.

The service, which routes more than 11 million messages each day, mostly captures information on wire transfers and other methods of moving money in and out of the United States, but it does not execute those transfers.

The service generally does not detect private, individual transactions in the United States, such as withdrawals from an ATM or bank deposits. It is aimed mostly at international transfers.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the paper acted responsibly, both in last week's report and in reporting last year about the wiretapping program.

"It's pretty clear to me that in this story and in the story last December that the New York Times did not act recklessly. They try to do whatever they can to take into account whatever security concerns the government has and they try to behave responsibly," Dalglish said. "I think in years to come that this is a story American citizens are going to be glad they had, however this plays out."

In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's name.

Gonzales has said the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060626/...ting_reporters

Interesting Americans are now wondering if the First Amendment should be scaled back a bit. So with such a lose of civil liberties what are Americans fighting for again??
 
thomaska
#2
Quote:

Interesting Americans are now wondering if the First Amendment should be scaled back a bit. So with such a lose of civil liberties what are Americans fighting for again??

I just don't think The Founding Fathers had this type of scenario in mind when they penned the Bill of Rights. I certainly do think however, that if they had had a way of predicting British military actions by monitoring money movements, and some newspaper exposed that they were doing it, the newspapers employees would have at the least been branded as Tories and been tarred and feathered.

Ask the average American how many Civil Rights have been lost because of this monitoring and you'll most likely get a blank stare. In my humble opinion this is the New York Times just firing the first broadside in the batlle for this years Pulitzers. They dont give two *hits about alleged civil liberty violations. Just my two cents tho...
 
missile
Conservative
#3
The local papers of the days of the Revolutionary Wars routinely published troop movements and ship sightings regularly. Luckily, most of the British and American troops were quite illiterate & this didn't cause much damage.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#4
Jersay

I thought you left...
 
thomaska
#5


The caption reads as follows...

A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.

Michele McNally: “Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”


The photo was taken by

Joao Silva for the New York Times

This asshat is standing there right by a terrorist in clear violation of the Al Qaeda times beloved Geneva Convention, and all he can think is " Oooo, better get a shot of that!"

How can the Times possibly wonder why there are quite a few people who think they are a pack of traitors?

And then this idiot McNally says "incredible courage" This douche was never in any danger from the pictured terrorist, they would never turn a rifle on one of their most beloved allies, the NYT.
 
ckeo
#6
news is news no matter what peoples opinions are and its called freedom.

more and more people seem to only want biased reporting.

And i mean seriously.... do you really think that terrorist organizations in this day and age dont know their banking transactions are being monitored ?
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#7
For a nation which, by and large, seems to hold the freedom of speech as something which should never under any circumstances be curbed (even for the greater common good), I would think it somewhat odd that citizens of the United States of America would charge any opinion in opposition to the Government of the United States to be treasonous. News stories, I suppose, should only show one side?
 
ckeo
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

For a nation which, by and large, seems to hold the freedom of speech as something which should never under any circumstances be curbed (even for the greater common good), I would think it somewhat odd that citizens of the United States of America would charge any opinion in opposition to the Government of the United States to be treasonous. News stories, I suppose, should only show one side?


very well said... i was trying to conjure up something along those lines but...
i was too wound up by the issue.
 
thomaska
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ckeo

news is news no matter what peoples opinions are and its called freedom.

more and more people seem to only want biased reporting.

And i mean seriously.... do you really think that terrorist organizations in this day and age dont know their banking transactions are being monitored ?

I had to stifle a giggle when I read that..biased reporting...I'd say the MSM is fairly biased with a left slant. I have no problems with people or newspapers voicing their opinions. I encourage it, and I think its vital for the U.S. to always have freedom of speech.

Banking transactions, well if they didnt know before, they certainly do now, don't they? If the monitoring could have stoppped one terrorist attack anywhere in the world, not just the U.S. , it would have been worth it in my eyes. Explain "public good" or "public interest" to someone who has lost a family member or a loved one in an attack. I'd love to see the response you get. The Bush haters, and the Jew haters have let their apoplectic rage blind them to true public interest and safety. IMO, it is all about bucking for next years Pulitzers, and embarrassing Bush.
 
ckeo
#10
bush dosnt need any help embarrassing himself.

Biased reporting... yeah... reporting without the real facts... you know... reporters publishing articles villifying rather than verifying.
 

Similar Threads

11
Wikipedia woes, crisis, editors leave, haha
by darkbeaver | Jan 8th, 2010
0
The Editors: An End Has A Start
by Blackleaf | Jun 8th, 2007
21
Die without argument
by china | Jan 7th, 2007
0
Critics puzzled by Flaherty's 'net debt'
by CBC News | Nov 24th, 2006