p2p news / p2pnet: The New York Times and several other newspapers which published the fact that, helped by the CIA, the Cheyney / Bush administration monitors foreign financial transactions, should be prosecuted, says House Homeland Security Committee chairman Pete King.

It, “clearly broke the law,” the New York Daily News has King saying. “The terrorists did not know that we had access to foreign transactions. This has definitely compromised our security in a time of war.”

He was “especially peeved” because the NYT revealed the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping of terror-linked phone calls from abroad.

“We’re at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous,”the Associated Press quotes King as declaring.

And, “I’m calling on the attorney general to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of The New York Times, its reporters, the editors that worked on this and the publisher,” King said on Fox News, according to The New York Times. “What they’ve done here is absolutely disgraceful.”

He also said the NYT was, “more of a recidivist” because of its publication of its article on the NSA program last year.

“He added, however, that he believed that the actions of other news organizations, including The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, should also be examined,” says the story.

Below is part of a letter NYT executive editor Bill Keller sent to readers who’d written to him about his newspaper’s publication of information about the government’s examination of international banking records.

It’s an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I’ve only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I’ve faced as an editor.

The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration’s claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not “why publish?” but “why would we withhold information of significance?” We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff - but it’s the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements.

Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government’s actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.

Digg this story.

Also See:
helped by the CIA - New Bush data piracy scandal, June 24, 2006
New York Daily News - Lawmaker wants White House to prosecute the press, June 26, 2006
Associated Press - Lawmaker Wants Times Prosecuted, June 26, 2006
The New York Times - Court Review of Wiretaps May Be Near, Senator Says, June 26, 2006

---

p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

This entry was posted on Monday, June 26th, 2006 at 7:33 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 1650 times