Bill Keller Tries To Defend The Times

Bill Keller, editor of the New York Times, wrote a reply to an Opinion Journal piece where the editors took the Times to task for their printing of the NSA story, and their attempt to justify the leaks emanating from the CIA. (For the ill-educated, there is no justification for such acts, nor is there any excuse for the Times to participate in the exposure of those secrets.) Below is Keller's reply, with my own mix of commentary tossed in for fun:

Most American newspapers, including yours and mine, try hard to separate the curiosity-driven world of reporters and editors from the ideology-driven world of editorial writers and columnists. The news and opinion departments operate under separate management, and they play by different rules. When editors like me disagree with our counterparts in opinion-land, we tend to keep it to ourselves.

Blowing the lid off of a classified program being utilized by the NSA to track down terrorists in this nation is not a disagreement with an editorial guy. They blatantly, despite objections from the White House, went ahead and published that story. For those keeping score, this is a no-no. It was a classified program which menas it's supposed to be kept secret. The Times knew exactly what it was doing when it chose to ignore those objections; worse, the Times did this to pimp a book written by the authors of the piece (Eric Lichtblau and James Risen).

Still, I imagine a lot of people on the news side of this divide were appalled by your editorial attack April 26 on the patriotism and professional integrity of journalists and government officials who talk to them ("Our Rotten IntelligenCIA," Review & Outlook). Since my paper was one of your particular targets, I hope you'll allow me to respond.

Your editorial posits a conspiracy between journalists and "a cabal of partisan bureaucrats" to undermine President Bush by sabotaging the war on terror. Among the suspects swept up and summarily convicted in your argument are: a) government officials who have disclosed secret doings of the government (with the exception of President Bush, whose leak-authorizing somehow escapes your notice); b) reporters and editors at the New York Times and Washington Post for reporting on these secret doings--notably the detention of terror suspects in CIA facilities in Europe and eavesdropping on Americans without warrants; and c) the Pulitzer Board, which honored both of those journalistic exploits last week.

Ahem. If I may? Thank you ... What a load of garbage. First, Mr. Keller's first contention which is a steep one. The assumption that the president is "leaking" information when he declassifies material for public consumption. I'm sure Mr. Keller is stating, through transparent innuendo, that the release of information regarding the supposedly covert Valerie Plame. For her cover to be blown, she needed to have one. Mr. Keller shows ignorance here by apparently knowing nothing regarding the NOC status of CIA officers. Further, he neglects to acknowledge that there are people within the CIA, quoted by the Chicago Tribune that she wasn't a NOC. So, there was no cover to blow, except out of proportion, which it has thoroughly become.

Second, the eavesdropping that is going on isn't going on against citizens. And even if it were, the president has the right and authority to do so. Four court cases provide for the president to do whatever is necessary to protect the nation. Those would be: In re: Sealed Case<, US v. US District Court, Butenko v. US, and Truong v. US. But it's not. As yet, no US citizen has presented a complaint that they have been surveilled. In addition, Sealed Case took the step further in chastising the FISA court for trying to place obstructions in the way of the administration in the prosecution of our enemies in the nation.

I leave to others, including the court of public opinion, whether the government officials who spoke to reporters about secrets that troubled them were partisan evildoers, as the Journal contends, or conscientious public servants, or something more complicated. Since most of them, including the nearly a dozen who were cited in the first warrantless eavesdropping story, have not been publicly identified, it's hard to know how the Journal is so certain of their motives.

What other reason would someone have for revealing classified information for distribution to the public? Does Mr. Keller have an answer for that, and I'd prefer I not hear the term "whistleblower" in the answer. This wasn't blowing the whistle on any illegal activity. The surveillance is more than defended through jurisprudence and precedent set. The CIA rendition story (if true at all based on the initial EU report stating that they're blind as bats over there; they can't find them) puts every one of those officers involved in danger. At the least, those would be people killed--possibly--that stems from a direct revelation of their operation. But what other motives are involved here? Are we looking at an Aldrich Ames sort of "hero" here, or are we looking at someone who disliked the administration, and took steps to reveal a classified operation to give the administration a headache. That's what this whole thing has been up to this point. On the portside, we have lawyers and legal scholars who continue to throw up the Fourth Amendment as a shield, or the First Amendment for their protection under "freedom of the press." The First Amendment doesn't protect a media outlet from breaking the law. The Fourth Amendment, despite it's gross misinterpretation, does not give everyone complete privacy.

As regards the journalists, the editorial is animated by a couple of assumptions. One is that when journalists write things politicians don't like, the motivation is sure to be political. The other is that when presidents declare that secrecy is in the national interest, reporters should take that at face value. I don't believe either of those things is true, and I find it hard to believe that you do, either.

If a journalist writes things that politicians don't like? That sounds more like an editorial, not a news story, and that is exactly how the NSA story was revealed. It was a news story, not an editorial. So, is Mr. Keller now admitting that journalists do inject invective and opinion in news stories? I doubt he will, though he probably should (just as much as the LA Times should admit this). And if the president states that something is classified, I do take that at face value. Why wouldn't I? He obviously has far more information than I do, and if he says something's a secret, then it'll stay that way. If the president chooses to, at a later date, declassify that information, then I obviously have a "need to know" at that time. How hard is it for the media to get this through their thick numbskulls? They do not have the right to know everything that goes on, yet they act that way when they break one of these stories, and weaken this nation further when they do.

To believe that aggressive journalism is driven by liberal partisanship requires an awfully selective memory. (Ask Bill Clinton. Ask Congressman Mollohan.) The role of journalism on our side of the news/opinion divide, at least as we aspire to perform it, is not to be advocates for or against any president or any party or any cause. It is not to tell our readers what we think or what they should think, but to provide information and analysis that enables them to make up their own minds. We are sometimes too credulous, sometimes too cynical--in other words, we are human--but I think we get the balance right most of the time, and when we don't we feel an obligation to correct it.

And what happens when a personal bias smudges that analysis. I'll be the first one to admit that I have a bias. However our readers will be the first ones to admit that we're fair here. We beat on the president as much as his detractors. The issues don't color any legal analysis or strategical analysis we post up here. Just because I dislike the president's approach to spending and immigration isn't going to color how I view how he runs the war. I think the war has been run just fine, with the occasional bump. Yet day in and day out, we see papers like the Times (both East and Left coast), the WaPo, The Chicago Tribune, etc., and see nothing but beatings on the president. Dislike over this. Seething anger over that. This didn't happen during the eight years of Bill Clinton. Michael Isikoff sat on the Lewinsky story. Dan Rather wanted to be "half as smart" as the Clintons (he was, but he got caught, too, and for the same reason Clinton got nailed. He lied). Don't tell me that the media was just as nasty to the President Clinton as they are to President Bush. I don't buy it.

In addition to fair treatment in the news pages, presidents are entitled to a respectful and attentive hearing, particularly when they make claims based on the safety of the country. In the case of the eavesdropping story, President Bush and other figures in his administration were given abundant opportunities to explain why they felt our information should not be published. We considered the evidence presented to us, agonized over it, delayed publication because of it. In the end, their case did not stand up to the evidence our reporters amassed, and we judged that the responsible course was to publish what we knew and let readers assess it themselves. You are welcome to question that judgment, but you have presented no basis for challenging it, let alone for attributing it to bad faith or animus toward the president.

Are we now reduced to the argument of the meaning of the word "no," or "don't?" I hope not because then it just sounds more like the Clinton approach of trying to figure out the definition of the word "is." I guess "this is classified" doesn't qualify to the Times as an adequate excuse why they shouldn't publish something. It's weak, and it's utterly ridiculous. What Mr. Keller is literally trying to excuse their actions by stating that they didn't buy the explanation of the White House. It's one thing when presidents or other public officials are playing hanky-panky with interns, or comes into a meeting stumblig drunk, but that doesn't apply when we're talking about a clandestine program that is being used to go after our enemies.

In the final paragraph of your broadside, you include the following disclaimer: "We've been clear all along that we don't like leak prosecutions, especially when they involve harassing reporters who are just trying to do their job." That's nice to hear, and squares with what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they set out to protect a vibrant, inquisitive press. It's just hard to square with the rest of your editorial.

Squares with what the Frmaers had in mind? LOL. You've got to be kidding me. He knows nothing of ConLaw. EVERYTHING in the First Amendment revolves around the second right guaranteed, and pointed directly at the first one:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The sole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect our political freedoms. We may worship whatever religion we desire to without government interference. We may say what we wish regarding our government and politicians without government interference. We may print what we wish about our government without government interference. And so on and so forth down the line. The First Amendment protects our political freedoms, BUT as with all "rights" comes the responsibility in maintaining them.

The New York Times violated the law. And based on that original story, one can make the assessment that the move was more partisan than not. Both Lichtblau and Risen have claimed that they wanted the story released much earlier than it was, and the times was the one dragging it's feet; according to both, in a strange twist of fate, they didn't like the excuse handed to them for not publishing the story quicker. But the point doesn't change.

The Times did break the law, and they're most certainly not above it. If Bill Keller believes that, he better pass what he's smoking because I don't see it. Should they be prosecuted? A distinct possibility that they should, but this is going to go through legal hell before we settle that issue. (It's already on the seventh level and heading for ninth.) But this reply to the WSJ is inept, and doesn't come close to proving anything. He's utilizing the same talking points the Left has stuck to since this story was printed last year. They don't get it, and that's fine. But they're wrong. Keller's wrong. The times was wrong, and in my opinion, if this program is as vital to national security that the administration claims it is, then there should be some prosecution over this. And most definitely to the leaker if they're ever found.

Publius II