Saturday, July 01, 2006

Keeping the story alive

Spinning wheels? Spinning furiously? I don't know if I have the heart this morning to read Bill Keller's and Dean Baquet's latest plea for understanding in their case for publishing secret, legal, successful anti-terrorist measures. It must not be very good because it's not behind the Times Select wall!

Among other things, Ann Althouse has this to say:
Here, Baquet and Keller have written a lengthy defense of their behavior, behavior that they know has been severely criticized, even called "treason." Despite the length, the piece seems padded. Look at that last paragraph in the blockquote above. We judge, we weigh, we make judgments. Essentially, trust us. Trust us, because you shouldn't just trust the government. Agreed, but why should we trust you? We look at what you just did and feel mistrustful. What in these generic remarks cures that mistrust? You tell us you really did think about it. Those who abhor what you did will not feel inspired to trust you when you say this is where we ended up when we really thought deeply about it.
Here's a man, who doesn't trust the NYT's and he lays out a pretty good case.
When I was in Iraq, the NY Times printed stories that explained where the weaknesses were in our body armor. Since my return to CONUS, I've seen them print stories that have reduced our ability to track terrorists by monitoring their communications, spot patterns in their phone calling and monitor their financial transactions. These aren't illegal or even questionable programs that the Times is exposing. They're as legal as investigations of mob bosses and they're done with subpeonas and through international treaties, and they've gotten proven results.


Anonymous the good looking older sister said...

I only read the WSJ piece this a.m. Very satisfying, except for the bit where it vaguely opposes prosecuting NYTs. Maybe there is a good reason but I am so appalled it needs to be spelled out to me. The other thing that occurred to my coffee-d up lawyer mind over my giant bowl of oatmeal was that I cannot think of a single reason why the family members of a civilian or soldier should not be able to sue the NYTs for the loss of their loved one in the event the family members can show in a court of law that compromises to national security measures (SWIFT, NSA) are the proximate cause (the civil law negligence standard) of the loss of their loved one. That does not require a crack down by the government. That's an enforcement of private rights. ("Have you or a loved one taken phenphen or been injured in a terorist strike?")

10:58 AM  
Blogger Nancy said...

Thanks, Kathy!

3:18 PM  
Blogger Nancy said...

Seriously, though, I'll bet that soldiers sign some kind of contract giving away their rights to sue. I dunno, just putting that out there 'cause one time I heard Bruce Willis on David Letterman explaining how he kept trying to give money to soldiers (or something like that), but that they're not allowed to take it.

How's that for reasoning? Feel free to use my methods of deduction in the courtroom -- no charge!

3:27 PM  
Anonymous the good looking older sister said...

My staff is also made to promise not to take money from Bruce Willis.

9:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home