A Presidential order issued authorized the US National Security Agency (NSA) to secretly monitor the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of thousands of US residents without warrants over the past three years.
In earlier times, such, secret prisons and so on, where thought to happen only in totalitarian communist countries.
You live and learn.
0 Replies
FreeDuck
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 09:30 am
bookmark
0 Replies
Ticomaya
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:01 am
9/11 changed a lot of things.
0 Replies
FreeDuck
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:11 am
Apparently none for the better.
0 Replies
squinney
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:46 am
I heard part of a discussion about this on NPR this morning. One person said they thought it was necessary. Another said they have polled on similar or related questions and Americans overwhelmingly find it okay for their government to snoop on Americans.
Another person said she didn't think those that were concerned about their civil liberties would agree.
What the hell is wrong with people?
I just can't get my head around people being okay with the government doing this.
I can't get my head around people giving up their rights to privacy because 4 years ago some guys flew planes into buildings.
9/11 changed a lot of things?
WTF? Are we the woosies of the world or what? Ya wanna send our children off to blow up a buncha people to show how tough we are while cowering to our own government?
Ya wanna send our children off to blow up a buncha people and bring freedom to those left standing, but you freely give up your own rights?
Ya'll are messed up!
0 Replies
Ticomaya
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:07 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Apparently none for the better.
I wouldn't attempt to characterize anything related to 9/11 as "for the better."
0 Replies
Ticomaya
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:37 am
"After Holding Off a Year," NY Times chooses today to splash that headline. Anything to move the story about the amazingly successful Iraqi elections out of the spotlight.
From the Times' article:
Quote:
What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.
In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.
Sounds terrible, doesn't it?
Also:
Quote:
Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.
Ahh, so we prevented a terrorist attack using this program. What if we hadn't, and Faris was allowed to finish his planned attack? The hypocritical leftists in the US would be clamoring that the Bush Administration didn't do everything it could to prevent the attack.
And what about this part:
Quote:
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.
So national security interests be damned. The Times is going to publish anyway. After all, the terrorists need to know we're listening in on their phone calls.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A key Republican committee chairman put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would make oversight hearings by his panel next year ``a very, very high priority.''
``There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,'' said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Other key bipartisan members of Congress also called on the administration to explain and said a congressional investigation may be necessary.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., appeared annoyed that the first he had heard of such a program was through a New York Times story published Friday. He said the report was troubling.
Neither Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice nor White House press secretary Scott McClellan, asked about the story earlier Friday, would confirm or deny that the super-secret NSA had spied on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002.
That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people inside the United States, the Times reported.
Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.
``We need to look into that,'' McCain told reporters at the White House after a meeting on Iraq with President Bush. ``Theoretically, I obviously wouldn't like it. But I don't know the extent of it and I don't know enough about it to really make an informed comment. Ask me again in about a week.''
McCain said it's not clear whether a congressional probe is warranted. He said the topic had not come up in the meeting with Bush.
``We should be informed as to exactly what is going on and then find out whether an investigation is called for,'' he said.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., also said he needed more information.
``Of course I was concerned about the story,'' said Lieberman, who also attended the White House Iraq meeting. ``I'm going to go back to the office and see if I can find out more about it.''
Other Democrats were more harsh.
``This is Big Brother run amok,'' declared Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. ``We cannot protect our borders if we cannot protect our ideals.'' Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., called it a ``shocking revelation'' that he said ``ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American.''
Administration officials reacted to the report by asserting that the president has respected the Constitution while striving to protect the American people.
Rice said Bush has ``acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'' And McClellan said Bush ``is going to remain fully committed to upholding our Constitution and protect the civil liberties of the American people. And he has done both.''
The report surfaced in an untimely fashion as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism.
The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.
Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.
Faris' lawyer, David B. Smith, said on Friday the news puzzled him because none of the evidence against Faris appeared to have come from surveillance, other than officials eavesdropping on his cell phone calls while he was in FBI custody.
Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.
Asked about this on NBC's ``Today'' show, Rice said, ``I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters.''
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the NSA disclosure was ``shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law.''
Asked about the administration's contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks, Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn't comment until it sees some evidence. ``They've veiled these powers in secrecy so there's no way for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any oversight.''
Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that while it appears that some information may have been left in the database longer than it should have been, it was not clear yet whether mistakes were made. A written statement issued by the department implied - but did not explicitly acknowledge - that some information had been handled improperly.
The administration had briefed congressional leaders about the NSA program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.
Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.
The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.
President Bush is a criminal; he thinks he's above the laws of the country that gurantees to right of privacy. There are established legal procedures for tapping into private phone conversations - even for the government. That's the reason why we have checks and balances.
0 Replies
talk72000
1
Reply
Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:00 pm
That is what you get when someone inherits the Presidency. Imagine if it had been a throne?
0 Replies
BumbleBeeBoogie
1
Reply
Sat 17 Dec, 2005 09:39 am
BBB
Not only did Bush violate federal laws, he violated The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Is this an impeachable offense?
What is so damning about what Bush did was that he kept his order in effect long after the 9/11 emergency when he had lots of time to comply with the law and get FISA Court approval. He didn't and continued to violate the law until he was caught red-handed in December 2005.
BBB
FISA Law
19 January 2001. FISA is the principal US law that covers electronic surveillance, physical searches and other covert activities. It is overseen by the FISA court, all of whose proceedings are held in secret. Targets of FISA activities and proceedings are denied full US Constitutional protection and privileges.
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 17 Dec, 2005 10:31 am
BBB, It's not only that Bush would willy-nilly overlook our Constitutional rights, but hasn't done anything to protect our borders. It's still an open border for freight and illegal immigrants.
Bushco supporters have a very myopic view about our "security."
Ask any frequent foreign traveler; the US has one of the worst security breeches at our airpots, and Bushco is worried about how we direct our personal lives in the US.
0 Replies
BumbleBeeBoogie
1
Reply
Sat 17 Dec, 2005 11:05 am
Speculation Builds Over Why 'NYT' Put off Bush Spying Scoop
Speculation Builds Over Why 'NYT' Put off Bush Spying Scoop
By E&P Staff
Published: December 16, 2005 11:00 PM ET
WASHINGTON
President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official told The Associated Press Friday night.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post said in a Saturday article that The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping "raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication."
The Times has said that it held off publishing the article for a year, explaining that the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."
It also disclosed that officials had assured senior editors of The Times "that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions."
Some speculate that the newspaper had waited for a "news peg" to publish the piece, perhaps finding it in the Patriot Act debate this week. But the paper, the Washington Post pointed out, did not say what had changed in the past year and "also did not disclose that the information is included" in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, co-author of the Friday story.
The book will be published in January by Simon & Schuster.
The Drudge Report first made the charge that the Times needed to beat-the-book early on Friday.
"The decision to withhold the article caused some friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper," the Post reports. "Some reporters and editors in New York and in the bureau, including Risen and co-writer Eric Lichtblau, had pushed for earlier publication, according to these people. One described the story's path to publication as difficult, with much discussion about whether it could have been published earlier."
In a statement Friday, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote that when the Times became aware that the NSA was conducting domestic wiretaps without warrants, "the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."
"Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions," Keller continued. "As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time."
In the ensuing months, Keller wrote, the paper satisfied itself through more reporting that it could write the story without exposing "any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."
The disclosure follows angry demands by lawmakers earlier in the day for a congressional inquiry into whether the monitoring by the highly secretive National Security Agency violated civil liberties.
"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," declared Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He promised hearings early next year.
0 Replies
BumbleBeeBoogie
1
Reply
Sat 17 Dec, 2005 11:09 am
0 Replies
BumbleBeeBoogie
1
Reply
Sat 17 Dec, 2005 11:43 am
Anger & Calls for Hearings re News of Stateside Surveill
On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance
By Dan Eggen and Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 17, 2005; A01
Congressional leaders of both parties called for hearings and issued condemnations yesterday in the wake of reports that President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 allowing the National Security Agency to spy on hundreds of U.S. citizens and other residents without court-approved warrants.
Bush declined to discuss the domestic eavesdropping program in a television interview, but he joined his aides in saying that the government acted lawfully and did not intrude on citizens' rights.
"Decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people," Bush said on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."
Disclosure of the NSA plan had an immediate effect on Capitol Hill, where Democratic senators and a handful of Republicans derailed a bill that would renew expiring portions of the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law. Opponents repeatedly cited the previously unknown NSA program as an example of the kinds of government abuses that concerned them, while the GOP chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he would hold oversight hearings on the issue.
"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the intelligence and judiciary committees, called the program "the most significant thing I have heard in my 12 years" in the Senate and suggested that the president may have broken the law by authorizing surveillance without proper warrants.
"How can I go out, how can any member of this body go out, and say that under the Patriot Act we protect the rights of American citizens if, in fact, the president is not going to be bound by the law?" she asked.
Officials across the government yesterday declined to publicly acknowledge the presidential order. But they defended, in general terms, the administration's aggressive strategies in attempting to combat terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and said that all programs have been lawful and protective of individual rights.
"Let me just say that winning the war on terror requires winning the war of information," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told reporters. ". . . And so we will be aggressive in obtaining that information, but we will always do so in a manner that's consistent with our legal obligations."
Government officials credited the new program with helping to uncover and disrupt terrorist plots, including plans by Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in 2003 to planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris's attorney, David B. Smith, said he and his client were never informed about the NSA surveillance and had presumed that the monitoring of his cell phone had been authorized by a court-issued warrant.
The existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program was reported late Thursday by the New York Times and confirmed by U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials.
The Washington Post, citing an informed U.S. official, reported that the NSA's warrantless monitoring of U.S. subjects began before Bush's order was issued in early 2002 and included electronic and physical surveillance carried out by other military intelligence agencies assigned to the task.
Since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s, the NSA has adhered to tight restrictions on its activities in the United States and has devoted its efforts almost exclusively to obtaining intelligence overseas. Domestic spying, much of which is handled by the FBI, is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and overseen by a special and highly secretive court that meets at Justice Department headquarters in Washington.
The order issued by Bush in 2002, however, allowed the NSA to monitor without a warrant international telephone calls, e-mails and other communications between people in the United States and those overseas. The Associated Press reported last night that Bush reauthorized the order 36 times.
A government official familiar with the NSA order said the president urged that the change be explained to only a very limited group of people on a "need-to-know" basis. That meant that, for nearly four years, only two people in the judicial branch of the U.S. government knew about the warrantless searches: U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who presided over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the time of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and rotated off the court in May 2002, and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who succeeded him.
The official said that then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and top officials in the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review first briefed a few key officials on the plans to change the 25-year prohibition on most domestic surveillance. In a series of meetings, officials also answered Lamberth's questions about what some informally called "the president's program," and they asserted that no information gained through warrantless surveillance would be used to gain the court's authorization for secret wiretaps and warrants.
Under the president's plan, only the presiding judge of the secret court was allowed to hear cases in which warrantless surveillance may have played a role, the government official said.
Lamberth and Kollar-Kotelly declined to comment yesterday. According to the government source, both raised questions about whether the program was constitutional but neither suggested they had a basis for asserting that Bush did not have the authority he claimed. They focused, instead, on the integrity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Lamberth had previously expressed grave doubts about the White House's post-Sept. 11 interest in mixing the investigative powers of intelligence agents with those of criminal detectives and prosecutors. A showdown over the issue resulted in the only decision ever issued by the secret court's appellate panel, which ruled against Lamberth and said the president had broad powers to authorize eavesdropping to fight terrorism.
After Kollar-Kotelly became presiding FISA judge in 2002, she became concerned in the course of one case that warrantless eavesdropping in the NSA collection program could be used to develop information to be presented in the FISA court, the government source said. There appeared to be no evidence that it had happened, only an indication that it could.
As a result of her complaint to the Justice Department, an intelligence source said, the department agreed to have high-ranking officials certify -- under threat of perjury -- that information presented to the FISA court was totally independent of any information gleaned in warrantless surveillance. The New York Times reported that the NSA program was stalled while this debate took place.
The NSA program highlights an ongoing and often tense legal debate over the boundaries of presidential power. John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer whose legal opinion helped support the creation of the NSA surveillance program, was also instrumental in the preparation of other memos that argued that Bush had nearly unfettered authority in areas related to the war on terrorism.
Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey H. Smith said he was "not shocked" by the program or the legal arguments underpinning it, because "the theory or the belief that the president had this constitutional power has been around for a long time."
But Smith also said: "These programs always have a way of being abused, of expanding beyond the purpose for which they were created. If the president believed it, he could have gotten authority to do it in the Patriot Act. By avoiding that course, in so doing, he may ultimately wind up eroding the very power he seeks to assert."
Some prominent Republicans defended the surveillance, arguing it was necessary to combat terrorism. "I don't agree with the libertarians," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that."
---------------------------------------------
Staff writers Carol D. Leonnig, Barton Gellman and R. Jeffrey Smith and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 17 Dec, 2005 12:48 pm
Trent Lott is an idiot. He would prefer that president Bush override our Constitutional rights, and he's supposed to protect our Constitution as part of his responsibility as a congressman to the people.
0 Replies
BumbleBeeBoogie
1
Reply
Mon 19 Dec, 2005 10:27 am
Editorials Hit Back after Bush Criticizes Spy Stories
Newspaper Editorials Hit Back after Bush Criticizes Spy Story
By E&P Staff
Published: December 17, 2005 10:00 PM ET
NEW YORK
Refusing to back down under criticism from the White House, The New York Times in a Sunday editorial calls for Congress to act on its revelations about a secret spying program against Americans. But many other major papers across the country also condemned the operation.
"President Bush defended the program yesterday, saying it was saving lives, hotly insisting that he was working within the Constitution and the law, and denouncing The Times for disclosing the program's existence," the Times editorial declares. "We don't know if he was right on the first count; this White House has cried wolf so many times on the urgency of national security threats that it has lost all credibility. But we have learned the hard way that Mr. Bush's team cannot be trusted to find the boundaries of the law, much less respect them.
"Mr. Bush said he would not retract his secret directive or halt the illegal spying, so Congress should find a way to force him to do it. Perhaps the Congressional leaders who were told about the program could get the ball rolling."
President Bush on Saturday had criticized the story and the leaks to the media that led to it. A Republican senator later attacked the Times for allegedly endangering lives (see other stories on this site).
In Friday's Times, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau reported that in 2002, President Bush signed a secret executive order to allow spying on American citizens without obtaining a warrant.
"Let's be clear about this: illegal government spying on Americans is a violation of individual liberties, whether conditions are troubled or not," the Times editorial states. "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."
The Washington Post on Sunday also offered a sharp assessment in an editorial: "As with its infamous torture memorandum, the administration appears to have taken the position that the president is entitled to ignore a clearly worded criminal law when it proves inconvenient in the war on terrorism. ...
"Congress must make the administration explain itself. In the aftermath of the revelations, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said hearings on the matter would be a high priority in the coming year. That's good. It should be unthinkable for Congress to acquiesce to such a fundamental change in the law of domestic surveillance, particularly without."
Other Sunday editorials follow.
Kansas City Star: "Typically, the administration is offering the public only broad assurances that it has behaved properly and that there's no reason to worry about the warrantless eavesdropping. But Congress and the American public are entitled to a more complete explanation of this ill-advised project."
Los Angeles Times: "[President Bush] is entitled to his own news judgment, but it reveals a lot about his willingness to disregard constitutional safeguards and civil liberties while pursuing the war on terrorism. To the rest of us, the revelation in the New York Times that the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on people within the United States without judicial warrants was stunning. In one of the more egregious cases of governmental overreach in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush secretly authorized the monitoring, without any judicial oversight, of international phone calls and e-mail messages from the United States."
St. Petersburg Times: "This is part of an imperial presidency that has emerged under Bush since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On the authority of the executive branch alone, the administration has imprisoned people for years without charge, captured suspects and put them in secret overseas prisons, and engaged in interrogation techniques that violate domestic law and international treaties."
Spying and Lying
Spying and Lying
Katrina vanden Heuvel
12.18.2005
"This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American."
--Senator Russell Feingold, December 17, 2005
As reported by the New York Times on Friday, "Months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying."
A senior intelligence officer says Bush personally and repeatedly gave the NSA permission for these taps--more than three dozen times since October 2001. Each time, the White House counsel and the Attorney General--whose job it is to guard and defend our civil liberties and freedoms--certified the lawfulness of the program. (It is useful here to note "The Yoo Factor": The domestic spying program was justified by a "classified legal opinion" written by former Justice Department official John Yoo, the same official who wrote a memo arguing that interrogation techniques only constitute torture if they are "equivalent in intensity to...organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.")
Illegally spying on Americans is chilling--even for this Administration. Moreover, as Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, told the Times, "the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity." Some officials at the NSA agree. According to the Times, "Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation." Others were "worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected President."
It's always a fight to find out what the government doesn't want us to know, and this Administration and its footsoldiers have used every means available to undermine journalists' ability to exercise their First Amendment function of holding power accountable. But compounding the Administration's double-dealing, the media has been largely complicit in the face of White House mendacity. David Sirota puts it more bluntly in a recent entry from his blog: "We are watching the media being used as a tool of state power in overriding the very laws that are supposed to confine state power and protect American citizens."
Consider this: the New York Times says it "delayed publication" of the NSA spying story for a year. The paper says it acceded to White House arguments that publishing the article "could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be-terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."
Despite Administration demands though, it was reported in yesterday's Washington Post that the decision by Times editor Bill Keller to withhold the article caused friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the paper's DC bureau had apparently pushed for earlier publication. In an explanatory statement, Keller issued the excuse that, "Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." This from a paper, which as First Amendment lawyer Martin Garbus pointed out in a letter to editor "rejected similar arguments when it courageously published the Pentagon Papers over the government's false objections that it would endanger our foreign policy as well as the lives of individuals." The Times, Garbus went on to argue, "owes its readers more. The Bush Administration's record for truthfulness is not such that one should rely on its often meaningless and vague assertions."
Readers and citizens deserve to know why the New York Times capitulated to the White House's request. It is true that Friday's revelations of this previously unknown, illegal domestic spying program helped stop the Patriot Act reauthorization? But what if the Times had published its story before the election? And what other stories have been held up due to Adminsitration cajoling, pressure, threats and intimidation?
The question of how this Administration threatens the workings of a free press, a cornerstone of democracy, remains a central one. Every week brings new evidence of White House attempts to delegitimize the press's role as a watchdog of government abuse, an effective counter to virtually unchecked executive power.
Last month, for example, the Washington Post published Dana Priest's extraordinary report about the CIA's network of prisons in Eastern Europe for suspected terrorists. Priest's reporting helped push passage of a ban on the metastasizing use of torture. But, as with the New York Times, the Post acknowledged that it had acceded to government requests to withhold the names of the countries in which the black site prisons exist.
How many other cases are there of news outlets choosing to honor government requests for secrecy over the journalistic duty of informing the public about government abuse and wrongdoing?
Never has the need for an independent press been greater. Never has the need to know what is being done in our name been greater. As Bill Moyers said in an important speech delivered on the 20th anniversary of the National Security Archive, a dedicated band of truth-tellers, "...There has been nothing in our time like the Bush Administration's obsession with secrecy." Moyers added. "It's an old story: the greater the secrecy, the deeper the corruption."
Federation of American Scientists secrecy specialist Steven Aftergood bluntly says, "an even more aggressive form of government information control has gone unenumerated and often unrecognized in the Bush era, as government agencies have restricted access to unclassified information in libraries, archives, websites and official databases." This practice, Aftergood adds, "also accords neatly with the Bush Administration's preference for unchecked executive authority."
"Information is the oxygen of democracy," Aftergood rightly insists. This Administration is trying to cut off the supply. Journalists and media organizations must find a way to restore their role as effective watchdogs, as checks on an executive run amok.