The NYT comes back out today to defend itself. Its not enough though. The entire issue about government “spying” on it’s own citizens has been blown out of proportion. It’s obvious to me that a team of editors and “journalists” at the Times used this article as a propaganda piece for a book (written by the very same person who wrote the article); the Times also chose to over-dramatize what really happened (and hopefully is still happening) to turn Americans off to President Bush; and the Times did this to sway votes in the Patriot Act hearings. In other words, this is nothing more than a marketing sceme designed to undermine the War on Terror.
Today’s editorial in the NYT:
On Oct. 17, 2002, the head of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, made an eloquent plea to a joint House-Senate inquiry on intelligence for a sober national discussion about whether the line between liberty and security should be shifted after the 9/11 attacks, and if so, precisely how far. He reminded the lawmakers that the rules against his agency’s spying on Americans, carefully written decades earlier, were based on protecting fundamental constitutional rights.
If they were to be changed, General Hayden said, “We need to get it right. We have to find the right balance between protecting our security and protecting our liberty.” General Hayden spoke of having a “national dialogue” and added: “What I really need you to do is talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be.”
General Hayden was right. The mass murders of 9/11 revealed deadly gaps in United States intelligence that needed to be closed. Most of those involved failure of performance, not legal barriers. Nevertheless, Americans expected some reasonable and carefully measured trade-offs between security and civil liberties. They trusted their elected leaders to follow long-established democratic and legal principles and to make any changes in the light of day. But President Bush had other ideas. He secretly and recklessly expanded the government’s powers in dangerous and unnecessary ways that eroded civil liberties and may also have violated the law.
General Hayden’s pleas were wrong. It is painfully obvious now that had the security forces in this country been able to share information, real time, things might be different now. The days, weeks and months following the 9-11 attacks didn’t allow for a national “dialogue” or debate as the General suggested. We were in the midst of anthrax attacks, we had just seen the first attacks on our own soil. The very rules that were written DECADES earlier no longer applied.
It was (and still is) a very different war with a different enemy. We cannot rely on the rules of a game that is no longer being played. The NYT editors say here that President Bush “secretly and recklessly” expanded government powers…I take issue with this statement. SOMEONE had to take control of the security of this country. It’s the job of the President to do this. Like it or not, sometimes this means doing something more than talk.
Let’s be clear about this: illegal government spying on Americans is a violation of individual liberties, whether conditions are troubled or not. Nobody with a real regard for the rule of law and the Constitution would have difficulty seeing that. The law governing the National Security Agency was written after the Vietnam War because the government had made lists of people it considered national security threats and spied on them. All the same empty points about effective intelligence gathering were offered then, just as they are now, and the Congress, the courts and the American people rejected them.
No, let’s be clear about this: The Vietnam War days are over. We no longer live in that world inside a bubble full of flowers and peace signs, where the minds of scholars and young people were influenced by drugs and crazy music. It’s a new world, a new threat we are dealing with now. What’s really sad about all of this is the fact so many people keep comparing this war to Vietnam. It’s not the same. We cannot continue to do this. Some people need to grow up and ditch the flowers and doves and realize it’s a new century. The 60’s are gone but the attitude of those times is still prevailing.
The NYT got what it wanted though. The article directly effected the votes of certain spineless Congressmen, who haven’t listened to history. See how your elected officials voted and REMEMBER this when the next election comes around.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Republican senator on Saturday accused The New York Times of endangering American security to sell a book by waiting until the day of the terror-fighting Patriot Act reauthorization to report that the government has eavesdropped on people without court-approved warrants.
“At least two senators that I heard with my own ears cited this as a reason why they decided to vote to not allow a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the Patriot Act,” said Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. “Well, as it turns out the author of this article turned in a book three months ago and the paper, The New York Times, failed to reveal that the urgent story was tied to a book release and its sale by its author.”
Blatant disregard for the security of this nation is criminal. The NYT should be investigated. Freedom of press is one thing, but to use the events of a current threat to garner attention for a book, or to alter opinions based on exaggerated claims is quite another…it’s treasonous and very dangerous to America.
Cross Posted @ ARS
