All The News The Times Won't Print
The New York Times is defending its decision to squelch the story it finally published today on the National Security Agency's domestic spying program. The paper revealed that it had complied with a White House request not to pubish the story because it "would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."
This is the same arguement that the government used to try to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers - and it is just as false today as it was back then. Does anyone really believe that al Qaeda operatives don't already assume that the government is attempting to wiretap their communications?
The Times story revealed that Bush secretly signed an order in 2002 authorizing the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans who were communicating with individuals overseas to determine whether they had ties to terrorists. The NSA is barred by law from domestic spying without a warrant appoved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.
Seems the Times editors actually believed government officials who told them that "a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." No legal questions? Why would the Times believe this? They're supposed to be journalists!
The Times has been bashing away at the Bush administration for their lack of honesty - and suddenly they're willing to believe that domestic surveillance without a warrant is legal? The Times sat on this story for a year and has redeemed itself only by releasing it just in time to help block renewal of provisions of the Patriot Act. Senators who were on the fence, like Sen. Charles Schumer, said this latest revelation about the abuse of executive power helped convince him to vote against renewal of the Act.
The Senate needed 60 votes to override fillibuster and end debate - and they never got the votes.
The reporters who landed the Times story are probably not happy about being muzzled and are not permited by their editors to speak out. But some reporter will get to them and perhaps answer some outstanding questions about this shameful episode.
According to a statement by the New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, "...in the course of subsequent reporting, we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."
What does this mean? Does the NSA have a new technology for gathering surveillance that the Times is keeping quiet? And why would the NSA feel compelled to not seek warrants from the FISA court? The court seldom turns down a warrant request and is set up to allow intelligence gathering to proceed quickly. The FISA laws even permits the Attorney General or those he deputizes to conduct an emergency wiretap without a warrant as long as they go back and file for one within 72 hours of the surveillance.
No, there is some other reason why the NSA wanted to keep this surveillance secret from the FISA court. The reason must have been compelling enough for those who knew about this surveillance to leak the story to the press. Too bad the New York Times is complicit in allowing this illegal spying to continue.
