About This New York Times Thing
Now, I speak only for me, and I know I have people who’ll disagree with me on the right and the left on this, but I don’t think the Times was ‘treasonous’, or that they want us to lose the War on Terror. I’m not a fan of ‘bad faith’ interpretations.
I do think, however, that the influence of Pinch Sulzberger, Bill Keller, and Gail Collins is such that they have created a hostile environment to the Bush Administration on both the news and editorial side, and I think this colors the decision-making process, and their hiring, and their focus.
I don’t wish to see the Times prosecuted, as I said before. They will mount a martyrdom such as the world has never seen, and the entire world press will genuflect at the feet of this storied institution. Trust me, it wouldn’t turn out good for Bush.
However, should the Times continue to see their profits erode, and the shareholders start agitating for changes – well, far be it from me to stand in the way of progress…
Your suggestion that the NYT not be prosecuted because they will whine loudly, while accurate, is exactly the reason they should be prosecuted for their continuing pattern of reckless disregard for the security of the United States.
It also fails constitutional muster. Equal protection under the law requires all crimes and criminals to be prosecuted, not just those that are convenient or non-controversial.
I don’t pretend to know what crime the NYT may have committed, but the company should be investigated and punished (if warranted) just like Enron.
Well, that’s not the only reason I say don’t prosecute…I generally think it’s a bad idea to go after the press in that manner except in the most extreme circumstances…
There is no legal case to be made against the Times. Supreme Court precedent in the two relevant cases (Near v. Minnesota and NY Times v. US, or the Pentagon Papers case) holds that the single exception to the freedom of the press in the First Amendment is when “”disclosure of any of them [the documents at issue] will surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people,” such as troop movements (which was the issue in the Near case).
(To avoid nit-picking: this is the sole exception in speech involving the communication of ideas. The restrictions regarding libel, commercial speech, yelling fire in a movie theater, etc., also apply to the press).
Well, others disagree with you, peter…
Turns out the sister paper found out there was an Executive Order signed in 2001.
Begging the question: why was this news?
At this moment-prosecution of the Times could not proceed until the leak is revealed and prosecuted.
A special investigtor could be given wide latitude to render his own findings regarding the leakers and their means of doing so, along with its legality.
Much rather see the NYT squirm, awaiting a possible indictment, while having to appear unbiased as they cover the special prosecutor. As the case against the leak proceeds, the culpablity of the NYT will become more/less apparent.
I would strongly advise the WH to pursue the leaks, and then wait for the chips(stock price) to fall.
I wonder if the the nyt and the cia realize how much is money is going to be directed from their budget to the Department of Defense’s operation.
What is manifesting itself is the compete decline of the CIA as an organization built around the military but over time ‘watered down’ by a move towars the civilian side.
Rummy knows. Its the reason they keep him on. Behind the scenes our entire intel service is being shifted to the military. GWOT? Emphasis on War. For the intelligence service future, it is apparent that it cannot be given over to civilians. Once, you had to be military to get in..now its just a civil service job. You get to gripe, bitch and tattle like everybody else.
No chain of command, no authority, no responsibilty-its a miracle we haven’t all be killed.
You are right Mark, the NYT is not deliberately “treasonous” nor does it “want us to lose the War on Terror,” but as a result of having fatally embraced populist liberalism and its escort, the hating of the Bush administration, it has lost its cognitive and intellectual balance in its reporting of events. It’s this inbalance of the Times, not to say malevolent hate of the Administration, that brings it close to BETRAYING the efforts of the latter to defeat global terror.
The proper subjects of any criminal prosecution are those gov employees who violated their public trust with these releases. The Timesies did, though, cut their own throats on this subject by demanding so vitriolically the scalps of Rove et al re Plame. They have set the precedent and cannot even claim the poor excuse of ignorance of its impact as many pressies across the political divide explained the ultimate reach of this clamor. All the while, the NYT as a business turns the sea red. Unreality in political philosophy in this case seems to go in hand with unreality in accounts receiveable and payable.
The stockholders have no say. they are second-class citizens. The Sulzberger family calls the shots.
[...] Christopher Hitchens chides those who call the NY Times treasonous (and for the record, I’m not among them: I think the Times is dripping with anti-Bush sentiment, but it’s not treasonous to hate a President (as opposed to the institution of the Presidency, say)). Hitchens has equally strong words for those defenders of the Times, however, who base their defense on the wrong-headed view that national security was harmed by the ‘outing’ of Valerie Plame as an example of conservative hypocrisy: In encounters with various conservatives this past week, I have come to realize that they are entirely serious about regarding the “MSM,” in particular the New York Times under the editorship of Bill Keller, as not just objectively treasonable but subjectively so—in other words, as being consciously hostile to the Bush administration’s war aims. This issue has also given the right-wing rank and file something to really gnaw upon, and I expect it will be with us all the way up to, and including, the fall elections. What a pity, therefore, that the conflict is so wrongly counterposed and can lead only to demagoguery on one side and hypocrisy on the other. [...]