Looping the Hen

Guest Blog #1 - Crossfire

This is going to be long, with both my thoughts and G-Max's note in its entirety; I am taking the liberty to post his comment to a new entry (Guest blog #1!), because it is well thought out and an important subject. So be warned, not for the faint of heart. And to Tarpy, no complaints from you after this for at least a week! Being the strong politico that you are, you should weigh in also.

Ok... as conservative as I'm getting in my old age, my liberal tendencies have to shine through here when it comes to protection of first amendment rights. Do I agree that absolutely a line has to be drawn in the protection of national security? Absolutely... the NY Times picture you included in your post demonstrates that. I see, however, three problems with the majority of the reactionary conservatives decrying the 4th estate's report of these terrorist stopping tools: First, the NY Times picture and "article", while sensational, is just that. To equate the stories that have been published in our time with having the same effect as the "one if by land" story is like comparing apples with orangutans.

Second, while I agree that this generally liberal press (as compared with the ideology of this administration) will opt more often than not with printing a story than surpressing it in the supposed name of National Security, however the conservative approach assumes that the press has not (during this administration's reign) surpressed a story in the name of national security. And, yes, while I can't point to concrete examples in the last 6 months of where they have done so, but asking for proof would be akin to proving the negative. Empiracally, though, the media has suppressed stories in recent past for national security purposes -- such as knowledge of NSA wiretapping and troop movements in the Gulf.

Third, and most importantly, the views expressed in the links adopt an extremely slippery slope approach toward news reporting. It assumes that the benefit to the people from withholding the story will always outweigh that from running the story if lives can potentially be saved. On its face this may seem logical, but to what extreme do we take it? Ok, fine, so what if we suppress the story about wiretapping and recording suspected terrorist transmissions from overseas (based on the President's record of zealous attempts to fight terrorists even in the face of privacy or other rights, however, the story should not come as a surprise to anyone), where do we stop from here? What if the President has a bad weekend in the Mideast while discussing international peace efforts with Jordan and Syria and pisses off a number of Muslim nations? Should the press surpress this information because terrorists can then turn to these nations to attempt to garner additional help from these countries in their fight against the US? Or hypothetically the Supreme Court hands down a verdict that the CIA/FBI/NSA is violating the right to privacy in their use of infrared or radio frequencies to search ship cargo holds containing international goods without permission of the shipowner? Suppress that too? Or how about the press reporting that airports still have a number of holes to fill in their checkpoints in order to make airline travel more secure? Stop that one as well? All of these potentially pose a threat to our national security as they set forth loopholes that terrorists can possibly explot, but the question remains where to draw the line?

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer, but I do know that it isn't allowing the government to direct what can and cannot be printed. Muslim countries already have that you see, its called state run press. To all you naysayers, I say criticize the press all you want, but I believe that reporting on problems like this causes private industry and the government to search for solutions to the problems the press is reporting on (and I dare say more quickly than if the issues weren't presented to the public). True, maybe the government and private sector is doing so to prevent egg from ending up on their collective faces, but in the end, if that makes the airlines I fly on more safe and secure, or the borders subject to more scrutiny, or cargo aboard sea or air vessels subject to more screenings, or other loopholes being closed, then by all means, I double dog dare you to tell me the media's reporting of the weaknesses to our security cannot (and has not and will not) make our country safer in the long run.
G-Max

I think this topic is important, in that it provides the contrast between the liberal perspective on the press's actions of late (and in general their feelings on security and defense) and the conservative. I think it also explains why to a large degree the American people typically have more faith in the right on security matters. Both of these programs were barely blips on the consciousness of people at large after they were exposed, because most people assume the government is (and more importantly, should be) doing these types of things to keep them safe. As I used to be a privacy advocate of the 1st degree, I see much of my old reasoning and reflexive defense of certain rights, and it may show why I drifted right on security matters. It is easier to hinge an argument on potential loss of freedom, which many liberals regularly do, than it is to defend actual exposure of programs responsible for tracking and capturing terrorists.

While I agree that the picture in the previous post is sensational and satirical, is it really apples to primates? I'm not so sure. Both the NSA program and the SWIFT program were operational in nature, and although they did not involve 'troops on the ground', they did (do?) let us capture people who want to kill us. I would also submit that the war on Islamic Fundamentalism, being a different type of war than a straight-up battle with the British, requires different types of tactics and strategy. So as Mr. Revere and companions allowed us to engage the redcoats, the NSA wiretapping program and SWIFT both allowed us to track and engage the terrorists, who typically are difficult to isolate. In that sense, I would say they are more similar than not; however, the semantics of irony and satire are not any points I would have any difficulty conceding. If you can figure out how to get the bad guys to wear bright red and line up straight so the Marines can shoot them, I'd be happy to forego these types of programs.

I don't know many (any, actually) conseravatives who say that 'no' stories have not been supressed due to national security concerns. I am certain that there have been stories not published due to national security concerns. In fact, I wish there were more stories not published due to national security concerns. The NSA story took over a year to come out if I remember, and Geraldo got kicked off the air for implying some troop movements. However, do you think troop movements specifically do not get published because it is out of the newspapermans' desire to protect their country and save lives or because they know for a fact it is one of the few times they will actually be in trouble if they print them? The one thing in common about all the national security stories is they look to have been outed by partisan political motivation, not any desire to 'serve the people.' Especially ironic is the New York Times publishing editorials saying that the administration is not doing enough to track terrorists funds or impede their operations, and then publish stories exposing the programs that are doing exactly that.

One of the main problems with the Times printing these stories is that they are fed by people who are breaking the law, and their security clearance, which are typically only granted after deep investigations (I remember my brother having his kindergarten and 1st grade teachers contacted before he got his). These are the people tasked with our security, and the papers are giving them an outlet to abuse their positions and disregard their responsibilities to keep us safe in order to attempt to make the administration look bad. The one time the media actually became interested in punishing leaks instead of exploring them was the Valarie Plame non-scandal; why is that do you think? Perhaps because it is the one time that the leak came from the right and damaged people's image of the left's worldview.

The slippery slope argument, which I used to use consistently (and one we used in many an off-case), is almost always the centerpiece of 1st Amendment discussions and anti-administration bias. The argument basically runs 'We need to expose ourselves to danger to protect our freedom!' However, it is here where the fundamental unseriousness of the liberals and left about national security and protecting our country shows most clearly. The slippery slope goes both ways. Instead of losing fundamental rights to expression (which are not really in peril, nor even demonstrated as being almost in peril), we are instead exposed to information that will allow terrorists to refine their operations and kill us more effectively. But at least I get to feel better about my right to blog about national security secrets now, right?

Neither the NSA program nor the SWIFT program were illegal, nor were they on any sort of slope. They were both operational successes. They both had congressional oversight by both political parties. They both had large amounts of procedure built in designed to protect individual rights; the NSA program received warrants from the FISA court in around 99% of cases and only in the most extreme and time-sensitive cases were warrantless taps conducted. Even in those cases, the NSA went back to seek warrants after the fact. The SWIFT program had additional international oversight.

If, during the course of their investigations, the Times had found abuses of these programs, I could see wanting to expose them. However, these were not programs where some 20-year old hacker is listening in on Bill Clinton talking dirty to an intern or to us talking about our unbreakable code. These were programs specifically tracking terrorists phone networks and financial transactions. There is no evidence, or even hint of, any abuses taking place. So I'm unsure what 'public interest' was presented or what abuse was prevented by the exposure of them?

I find this quote most interesting "...I double dog dare you to tell me the media's reporting of the weaknesses to our security cannot (and has not and will not) make our country safer in the long run." The funny thing is, I agree with you. I want my baggage to be safer, and my planes to be safer. The problem is, both the NSA program and the SWIFT program were the programs making our country safer in the long run. No one at the Times ever argued that exposing these programs would make us more secure, unlike ones exposing flaws in our security nets. These were best-of-breed counter-terrorism efforts, with operational oversight and no reported abuses. I hope you are not suggesting we are now safer because these programs are now probably ineffective? These programs were exposed to sell newspapers and attempt to make the administration look bad, nothing more, and that is infinitely more troubling than some possible and unproven hypothetical abuse. When Bill Keller wrote his editorial defending the Times exposure of the SWIFT program, his argument was not based on anything as serious as alleged or possible abuses, but instead the vague notion of the 'publics' right to know.'

When the White House or the Pentagon requests a newspaper to not print a story, it is just that, a request. No one has limited the freedom of the press to publish. We are not on the verge of a state-run press, and it is hyperbole to suggest it. These types of articles are the proof that the government is not trying to run the press, otherwise many Times' folks would be in jail where they belong for violation of various espionage laws. In fact, I would suggest that is proof that the administration is being too accomodating when it comes to protecting the 1st Amendment, not that there is about to be some 4th Estate coup.

I would like to hope that the press would publish those stories where it really is in my best interest to 'know', such as a loophole in airport security that needs to be fixed ASAP (where that information could allow me to make an informed decision not to fly, if I chose). It is too bad they are choosing to expose the programs that are actually working to protect us, not those that aren't, and my family and friends are less safe because of it.