The Old Gray Excuse

JustOneMinute has a piece on the NYTimes editorial on whistleblowers and reporting. You guessed it, it's related to the NSA spying topic. [h/t Libertarian Leanings]

Some very interesting information that I haven't seen anywhere in the MSM about whistleblowers and foreign intelligence. But I leap ahead.

Most of the piece wraps around the Plame leak. I honestly think that argument a waste of time on the NYTimes editor's part.

I like this part:

A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials.

Hmm. What if what "those in power" are concealing are important national security secrets in wartime? Who makes the call? And how long can we survive if every disputed wartime decision is debated on the nation's front pages?

Reporters need to be able to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences.

Now wait - the Times is entitled to keep their secrets, but the government cannot? Who died and made Sulzberger king publisher? I understand the importance of running ads in the Christmas season, and I guess its easier to do that if a news story or two accompanies them, but why should we trust the Times?

I must agree. National security decisions are the responsibility of the Executive branch, especially during a period of war. When it comes down to brass tacks, we can hold the elected officials responsible. Not being empowered by a vote of the citizenry, I don't see how the NYTimes can assume anyone should trust their judgments.

The discussion goes on to speak to the whistleblower theme. The Whistleblower Protection Act is mentioned and stated that it doesn't cover people in the intelligence world. I'm not sure that is completely correct. I think it means that they can't reveal information as described here:

(i) Except as specifically authorized under this section, the provisions of this section shall not be considered to authorize disclosure of any information by any agency or any person which is--

(1) specifically prohibited from disclosure by any other provision of law; or

(2) specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs.

(j) With respect to any disclosure of information described in subsection (a) which involves foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information, if the disclosure is specifically prohibited by law or by Executive order, the Special Counsel shall transmit such information to the National Security Advisor, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

Sounds to me like the information released would fall under this. JustOneMinute addresses:

Oh, well - the Plame leakers were evil. Let's revert to the Times attempt to clear the fog:

There is a world of difference between that case and a current one in which the administration is trying to find the sources of a New York Times report that President Bush secretly authorized spying on American citizens without warrants. The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have.

Can I opt out of this? Please? I don't want the Times deciding, in wartime, just what information I "deserve to have", thank you very much - they are not elected, they are not accountable, and frankly, I do not trust their politics. But rather than abandon my fellow citizens to the mercies or depredations of the Bush Administration, let me offer a constructive suggestion - since we have a representative democracy, complete with institutional checks and balances and two parties, how about if the purveyors of classified info, when troubled by their consciences, take their troubles to a Congressional oversight committee rather than the NY Times?

Whistleblowers do have alternatives in the case of foriegn intelligence. Those pesky committees are there. It really does make one wonder why those who had issues with the methods didn't utilize the systems in place. But hey, the Senators that had issues with it and were on those committees weren't able to do anything, so I suppose the MSM was the only option left. (yeah right.)

The NYTimes editor's final argument apparently bothered others as much as it did me. I've read it several times and I still can't find the logic.

When the government does not want the public to know what it is doing, it often cites national security as the reason for secrecy. The nation's safety is obviously a most serious issue, but that very fact has caused this administration and many others to use it as a catchall for any matter it wants to keep secret, even if the underlying reason for the secrecy is to prevent embarrassment to the White House. The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance - only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law.

Odd, I could have sworn that the nation's safety was Major subject of this whole NSA spying thing. I'm just stunned that this editor thinks that the Administration has to prove that national security was harmed. I would think a logical person with two brain cells to rub together could come to that conclusion. Confirmation that spying was going on and was providing results would indeed assist the complacent or the low level terrorist. Not all terrorists are genius' or have a thorough understanding of electronic surveillance. Those are some of the types that this information would assist. The NYTimes seems to believe that all terrorists are beyond being observed by the NSA.

Lastly from the NYTimes:

Leak investigations are often designed to distract the public from the real issues by blaming the messenger. Take the third leak inquiry, into a Washington Post report on secret overseas C.I.A. camps where prisoners are tortured or shipped to other countries for torture. The administration said the reporting had damaged America's image. Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that.

Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers.

Blaming the messenger? Yeah, when they scream out things that you don't want to the enemy to know. I also find it laughable that they seem to believe that they can't be criticized, though they themselves are fully allowed to criticize anyone they choose. Life ain't fair baby, get used to it.

Spying and torture do indeed need to be investigated, but so do whistleblowers and newspapers who are violating the laws themselves.