Bill Keller, Editor of the New York Times, has written a response to those who have expressed concern about the NYT exposing a secret program which the US government has been using to track financial transactions of terrorists and those who are doing business with them. The Times last week published their findings based on information received from undisclosed sources. The article indicates that the program was not illegal, was effective and had been subject to oversight within the legislative bodies of the US.
Hugh Hewitt and others have asked Keller to respond directly to those who feel that publication of the materials represents a seditious act. Mr. Keller refuses to confront directly his position, expressed in the original article:
Bill Keller, the newspaper’s executive editor, said: “We have listened closely to the administration’s arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration’s extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.”
If there is strength in his conviction, then Keller should welcome at least several opportunities to be interviewed or debated. In his prepared response to critics, Keller writes:
Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government’s anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that’s the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting[sic] the threat of terror.
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 response suggests that the outcry is an effort to discredit the Times by conservatives. This type of response is a deflection, not a true response. Secondly, he suggests that the “freedom of the press” trumps all considerations including national security.
Imagine that the “press” had obtained information about the time and place of the D-Day landings in 1944. Would Keller argue that the public’s right to know would justify publication of the information? Would he suggest that the public would acknowledge a legitimate right to be informed of the landing information? Would the public accept that many more men might die because such information was printed? Would the “freedom of the press” trump the right of the government to keep such information confidential? I think that an intellectually honest Keller would have to answer as he has in the present case-print the information and damn the consequences. Many American soldiers should die to preserve the press right to publish such information according to Keller. Does Mr. Keller see a connection between the government’s current activity to inhibit terrorist finances and the death of our soldiers and innocent civilians? Perhaps, in which case their action is even more reprehensible.
Mr. Keller and the entire NYT staff should feel deep shame for their actions. They do not, to say the least.
Freedom Essays and Michelle Malkin have additional comment.
