House Condemns The Media, And I Ask "Why?"
From the WaPo for this morning's edition:
Newspapers have criticized politicians for decades, but House Republicans turned the tables yesterday. Over most Democrats' objections, the House voted to condemn the news media's disclosure of a secret program that monitors international bank transactions, endorsing President Bush's assertion that major newspapers have acted disgracefully and undermined vital anti-terrorism efforts.
The GOP-crafted resolution, approved 227 to 183, also condemned the unidentified sources who leaked information of the program. It said the House "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations" in protecting the government's capability "to identify, disrupt, and capture terrorists."
The House vote was the latest volley in a Republican campaign accusing the New York Times and other news outlets of endangering national security by disclosing classified programs, including the warrantless surveillance of Americans' phone calls and the collection of phone data from U.S. residences and businesses. The resolution forced Democrats -- who were allowed to offer no amendments or substitutes -- either to side with language that strongly defended Bush's controversial surveillance initiatives or to appear to be defending news outlets accused of aiding terrorists.
If publication of the bank-monitoring program goes unpunished, "What won't be leaked, and what won't be published?" asked Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) during the debate.
But Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) chastised the Republicans. "You know better than to seek to amend the First Amendment," which protects a free press, he said. He noted that Republicans have vilified the Times, which has a liberal editorial page, but barely mentioned the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page is conservative.
Last week, the Times, the Journal and the Los Angeles Times reported that the program bypassed traditional banking privacy protections in order to track vast numbers of international money transfers in a bid to spot terrorist funding activities. The Washington Post quickly matched the reports, and all four papers had extensive articles on June 23.
The House resolution did not name any publication, and sources said it was milder in its criticisms than some GOP members had wanted.
The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio), said that "the disclosure of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has unnecessarily complicated efforts by the United States Government to prosecute the war on terror and may have placed the lives of Americans in danger both at home and in many regions of the world." It "condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those persons responsible and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of American citizens."
Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said the resolution "attempts to intimidate the press and strengthen the hands of this despotic administration, which continues to violate the law. . . . Freedom of the press is essential to a functioning democracy."
But Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said the New York Times reporters and editors who handled the banking story "are co-conspirators with the leakers," and should be hauled before a grand jury and forced to name their sources. If there is another terrorist attack on the United States, King said, "the blood will be on their hands."
In the Senate, John Cornyn (R-Tex.) introduced a similar resolution "condemning the damaging leaks and subsequent publication of vital national security information about the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" and the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails. It was unclear if or when the Senate would take up the measure.
Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) continued to gather signatures on a letter urging House leaders to revoke the credentials that allow New York Times reporters to move about the Capitol.
The House resolution mentions nothing about the New York Times. It is the WaPo identifying the New York Times in this story. Rep. Dreier, Rep. Hayworth, Rep. King, and Rep. Frank all mentioned the New York Times by name in the floor debate, but there is nary a word regarding either Times paper in the resolution. The House caved in, and refused to call them out; to call them on the carpet for their idiotically obtuse ideas regarding what they should and should not divulge to the public. They have, essentially, sacrificed our security for silver and slander. But the House refuses to stand up and state that. They would rather hide behind flowery words, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done. And we should all be happy because, after all, they cared enough to do something.
What was that something, again? It seems that "it" has slipped my mind.
God forbid we ask them to be serious ONCE. When it really matters. The necessity for the government to come out and state--on the record--that the New York Times endangered our national security by disclosing a classified program to track our enemies is imperative. Furthermore, Attorney General Gonzales needs to instruct the Justice Department to subpoena both authors, and the editor who ultimately approved of their story. Get them on the stand, and compel them to reveal their source.
This issue goes beyond the Times simply blowing an operation. This goes to plugging this leak, permanently. And sending a clear, concise message that leakers will not be tolerated int he government--whether it is a Republican or Democrat--and there will be repercussions. If any of the times trio refuses to cooperate, then they can go the martyr's route to jail like Judith Miller did. I would personally like to see Pinch there, but that is wholly unrealistic.
And if they further refuse to cooperate, there is always the route of prosecution. They still did break the law. THAT is why so many people are outraged. But to see the House lose its spine when the issue matters--when the message needs to be conveyed that revealing secrets in a time of war is wrong and illegal--that is sickening. After seeing the initial reaction from Congress the day this story ran, I actually had a bit of confidence in the GOP for doing what was right, when it was right, without any sort of prompting from the base.
I feel as though we could be pointing a gun at them, and they would still cave in to the Times. No amount of prompting seems to be sinking in. So, once again, we are back to square one. It seems to me that every time the GOP gets close to pounding those last few nails in the coffin of the Left they whack their thumb, and let the vampire loose again.
Marcie
From the WaPo for this morning's edition:
Newspapers have criticized politicians for decades, but House Republicans turned the tables yesterday. Over most Democrats' objections, the House voted to condemn the news media's disclosure of a secret program that monitors international bank transactions, endorsing President Bush's assertion that major newspapers have acted disgracefully and undermined vital anti-terrorism efforts.
The GOP-crafted resolution, approved 227 to 183, also condemned the unidentified sources who leaked information of the program. It said the House "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations" in protecting the government's capability "to identify, disrupt, and capture terrorists."
The House vote was the latest volley in a Republican campaign accusing the New York Times and other news outlets of endangering national security by disclosing classified programs, including the warrantless surveillance of Americans' phone calls and the collection of phone data from U.S. residences and businesses. The resolution forced Democrats -- who were allowed to offer no amendments or substitutes -- either to side with language that strongly defended Bush's controversial surveillance initiatives or to appear to be defending news outlets accused of aiding terrorists.
If publication of the bank-monitoring program goes unpunished, "What won't be leaked, and what won't be published?" asked Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) during the debate.
But Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) chastised the Republicans. "You know better than to seek to amend the First Amendment," which protects a free press, he said. He noted that Republicans have vilified the Times, which has a liberal editorial page, but barely mentioned the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page is conservative.
Last week, the Times, the Journal and the Los Angeles Times reported that the program bypassed traditional banking privacy protections in order to track vast numbers of international money transfers in a bid to spot terrorist funding activities. The Washington Post quickly matched the reports, and all four papers had extensive articles on June 23.
The House resolution did not name any publication, and sources said it was milder in its criticisms than some GOP members had wanted.
The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio), said that "the disclosure of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has unnecessarily complicated efforts by the United States Government to prosecute the war on terror and may have placed the lives of Americans in danger both at home and in many regions of the world." It "condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those persons responsible and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of American citizens."
Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said the resolution "attempts to intimidate the press and strengthen the hands of this despotic administration, which continues to violate the law. . . . Freedom of the press is essential to a functioning democracy."
But Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said the New York Times reporters and editors who handled the banking story "are co-conspirators with the leakers," and should be hauled before a grand jury and forced to name their sources. If there is another terrorist attack on the United States, King said, "the blood will be on their hands."
In the Senate, John Cornyn (R-Tex.) introduced a similar resolution "condemning the damaging leaks and subsequent publication of vital national security information about the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" and the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails. It was unclear if or when the Senate would take up the measure.
Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) continued to gather signatures on a letter urging House leaders to revoke the credentials that allow New York Times reporters to move about the Capitol.
The House resolution mentions nothing about the New York Times. It is the WaPo identifying the New York Times in this story. Rep. Dreier, Rep. Hayworth, Rep. King, and Rep. Frank all mentioned the New York Times by name in the floor debate, but there is nary a word regarding either Times paper in the resolution. The House caved in, and refused to call them out; to call them on the carpet for their idiotically obtuse ideas regarding what they should and should not divulge to the public. They have, essentially, sacrificed our security for silver and slander. But the House refuses to stand up and state that. They would rather hide behind flowery words, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done. And we should all be happy because, after all, they cared enough to do something.
What was that something, again? It seems that "it" has slipped my mind.
God forbid we ask them to be serious ONCE. When it really matters. The necessity for the government to come out and state--on the record--that the New York Times endangered our national security by disclosing a classified program to track our enemies is imperative. Furthermore, Attorney General Gonzales needs to instruct the Justice Department to subpoena both authors, and the editor who ultimately approved of their story. Get them on the stand, and compel them to reveal their source.
This issue goes beyond the Times simply blowing an operation. This goes to plugging this leak, permanently. And sending a clear, concise message that leakers will not be tolerated int he government--whether it is a Republican or Democrat--and there will be repercussions. If any of the times trio refuses to cooperate, then they can go the martyr's route to jail like Judith Miller did. I would personally like to see Pinch there, but that is wholly unrealistic.
And if they further refuse to cooperate, there is always the route of prosecution. They still did break the law. THAT is why so many people are outraged. But to see the House lose its spine when the issue matters--when the message needs to be conveyed that revealing secrets in a time of war is wrong and illegal--that is sickening. After seeing the initial reaction from Congress the day this story ran, I actually had a bit of confidence in the GOP for doing what was right, when it was right, without any sort of prompting from the base.
I feel as though we could be pointing a gun at them, and they would still cave in to the Times. No amount of prompting seems to be sinking in. So, once again, we are back to square one. It seems to me that every time the GOP gets close to pounding those last few nails in the coffin of the Left they whack their thumb, and let the vampire loose again.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:01 AM
1 Comments:
I have no objection to the Senate or House passing resolutions-they aren't law. But, the resolutions should have been directed to Mr. Ginzales, the Attorney General, to take action.
Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home