Should the Fourth Estate decide National Security Issues?

Great Debates
61

I would say they have plenty. If they press engaged in secret wiretapping we have numerous mechanisms to find this out and prosecute any misdeads.
Likewise, if the press decided it was in the nation’s best interest that the public not be told that it is keeping its “anonymous sources” locked in the basement until such a time as it deemed fit to release them, then we as a nation are equipped with numerous ways to discover and deal with this.
Now on the other hand, you do have a strong point. If they press decides that the details of its editorial process should not be available to the public then there is little the American people can do about it.

Its a fairly simple logic. The need for accountability rises in porportion to the level of power and responsibility.

With that said, I suspect when you say “accountability” you mean being held accountable for what they chose to publish. In that you’re correct. There’s relatively little the government can do to hold the press accountible for what they publish; it’s one of those inconvenient aspects of the Constitution.

For example, in the matter of disclosing classified material. Given that they press is not an authorized custodian of classified material they make, at no point, any sort of vow to protect it. Now, the person who discloses that material can certainly be taking to task for that violation, but not the uncleared person whom he informs.

If the government is aware of this disclosure they can ask the informee to sign a ‘non-disclosure’ agreement but it is justifiably difficult to force.

Likewise, if the informee then tells more uncleared individuals that information they still have violated no law. They were never sworn to protect the information in the first place.

The rare exception is when their is a case to be made that subsequent disclosure was made with an intent to do harm or criminal negligence [the incitement to riot or “FIRE” in a theatre issues].

However, in all cases the uncleared discloser [the press] is still open to civil liability [as is everyone] and thus, is once again accountible.

Once again, to recap. Why the differing levels of necessary accountability between the government and the press?

They are two-fold [ignoring that Constitution thing again].
First, there is the disparity in level of power. The press doesn’t make laws. The press are private citizens and thus legally limited to what private citizens are allowed to do. If they perform illegal acts they lack the recourse of declaring them secret “for the good of the nation.” Thus, there isn’t the need for seperate oversight and dealing with the “who watches the watchers” issues.

Second, in regards to accountibility for what they publish. By its very nature what they publish becomes, well… public. Thus, the public has the recourse of holding the press accountable for their actions.

Largely true, but also largely meaningless if the public is unaware of what actions that majoritarian republic has taken and is taking.

Sure, the public can generally be assumed to have given its government the authority to engage in legal, constitutionional [redundant I know] actions on its behalf. That in no way takes away the right of the public to demand that there be strong measures in place to ensure that those actions are legal, constitutional and in keeping with the public will.

62

To clarify matters, if the government wishes to make the argument that the aformentioned disclosure meets the above criteria then I would agree there is nothing inherent in the Constution to prevent them from trying to prosecute on those grounds. In such a case the Constitutional protection comes in form of the Judicial branch. The case goes before a judge to be tried on its merits [which, in this case, I would argue are insufficient].

Likewise, the Constitution doesn’t protect me from an accusation that I killed Kennedy. My protection comes from an independent Judiciary.

Now, posters wish to make the argument that the disclosure of the financial tracking program fulfills the “incitement to harm” condition then I’d be happy to enter into that debate, though I’d prefer to do it in another thread as its a seperate issue from “The Fourth Estate deciding National Security Issues.”

63

This is the most dangerous idea I’ve read in some time. First of all, even the elected representatives were largely in the dark on this. Chances are, NONE of your elected representatives was in on the policy and had any input. The tactic, be it good or bad, was implemented by an administration with a very uneasy relationship with the truth and a track record of running roughshod over the Constitution. More importantly, this is NOT a “majoritarian republic.” The rights of the minority must be preserved as much as the right of the majority. To assume that just because something is done by the elected representatives must mean that it is OK

reflects the will of the people is dangerous indeed.
It has been known for some time that part of the “war on terror” was monitoring financial transactions. Where legitimate tracking of terrorists ends and where invasion of the privacy of the individual begins is not something that I would trust Bush and Cheney with for one minute.

64

the “and” above was supposed to be in italic, not a quote box. My apologies.

65

Bush and Co. are elected representatives, are they not? And, as I mentioned, none of the editors at the NYT were elected.

Sure it is, in ways that the NYT does not even pretend to approach.

I didn’t say that. What I said was that my elected officials are accountable to me at every election. The editorial board of the NYT never is.

And since they do not need a majority to exert their influence, a determined or rich minority can keep them funded such that they can continue to act in defiance of the will of the majority.

And the interesting thing about this is the complete absence of any suggestion of illegality about the program. The NYT doesn’t even pretend that it was. They simply got wind of a secret program, didn’t like it, and compromised it.

And I, for one, am not prepared to assume that their motives were any higher than any other disgruntled politician who leaks information to try to damage his opponent. And I don’t think a press with Jayson Blair and Janet whatever-her-name-was-with-the-eight-year-old-heroin-addict has much right to claim that we should instantly assume that they are as pure as Calpurnia. The NYT hates Bush, and I really do not put it past them to care more about trying to do political damage to him than national security.

Regards,
Shodan

66

So, how do you propose to distinguish true national security matters from those classified to hide illegal spying (not this one, but the collection of numbers.)

There is one country, at least, where national security is well protected from the evil press. Link. Perhaps Mr. Shodan would like us to do it their way.

67

[quote]
In a majoritarian republic, the people can be assumed to have consented to the actions of their representatives.[/quote[
How can you assume the people are consenting to the actions of their representatives when you’re arguing they shouldn’t be informed of what those actions are?

68

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]

Don’t you wish we live in one? :rolleyes:

69

What a lame argument. “China censors! You want to be like China?”

China also limits private gun ownsership. If you also believe in limiting private gun ownership, does that make you a Commie? In fact, listing all the totalitarian states that have banned gun ownership and comparing gun controllers in the U.S. to them is a favorite tactic of the NRA. I take it you support that line of argument?

Anyway, it’s easy to tell when it’s wrong to leak something to the press and when it’s right:

When the leak involves ‘outing’ an active clandestine program that is working to stop terrorists, it’s the right thing to do.

When the leak involves ‘outing’ a semi-retired CIA field agent who isn’t actively working on anything, it’s a high crime that should cause heads to roll and people to go to jail.

Simple, really.

70

Yehyehyehyehyeh! :slight_smile:

71

If the Bush Administration had a valid argument as to why the article shouldn’t be published, they should have availed themselves of the judicial system to seek an injunction.

The fact that they didn’t tells me that they didn’t have enough to sustain a prior restraint order, and they knew it, so they thought they’d just try to bully the Times into not running the story.

Is freedom of the press absolute? Certainly not (look up U.S. v. Progressive some time,) but the government had better have a damn good reason why and “because we don’t want you to” doesn’t cut it.

72

Once again, because the actions of the press are by their very nature, public, they are always accountable. The public is aware of what actions they take because they publish them. If you dislike those actions, protest the paper, boycott it. Heck, sue them if you think you have a case.

I’m really not sure why you keep coming back to this idea of “where’s the press’s accountability?”
As I mentioned further, given that the press does not hold authority beyond that of a private citizen, there is far less need for oversight and limits on their power.

73

Doh!. As I mentioned earlier… not as I mentioned further

74

People who violate an oath and reveal classified information, in order to sell newspapers or to discredit a political opponent, are committing crimes and should be punished. If you tell me that any reporter was given classified information under the terms of a security oath and then revealed that information, I’ll be the first to say they should be put in prison. And if you tell me that a politician was given classified information under the terms of a security oath and then revealed that information, I’ll say the same.

75

Let’s see. The outing of Ms. Plame actually violated Federal Law and even the current administration (whence the person responsible for breaking the law came) has (half-heartedly) attempted to put together a case to prosecute the infraction.

On the other hand, the same administration spent hours attempting to dissuade two “hostile” press organizations to suppress the other story and never even asked a “friendly” organization to withhold the identical story.

It seems pretty clear which of those two scenarios are deemed proper or lawful according to the Bush administration.

76

Would that it were so simple.

Shortly after 9/11, there were some rather sensible recommendations made on how to fight terrorism:

Guess whose good idea that was?

“Do the right thing. And we will condemn you for it.”

Never mind charging them with treason - self-parody is more like it.

Regards,
Shodan

77

So, the NYT called for an actual action by government to track and control the movement of money moved by terrorists. This was an appeal to do so openly where the governemental actions could be supervised by the citizenry. Of course, this adminstration does not seem capable of doing anything in the open, so they took up the NYT suggestion and hid it. Later, when the NYT reported on those actions, (including the fact that such actions were, indeed, legal), the adminstration whined that the NYT was doing something bad because they were not letting the administration–an adminstration with a record of deceit–continue to carry out the NYT suggestion in secrecy (even though it was not bad for the WSJ to report on the same event).

Seems like one more non-issue to me.

78

IMNSHO, it is solely the responsibility of the government. The newspapers’ printing this is really no different from me snitching the secret data and selling it. I believe there is a case to be made here that the person(s) involved, all the way up to the editor and publisher of the paper, should be prosecuted criminally for this.

79

While it may be same to assume that the NY Times assumed that any program based on their recommendations would not be secret, what is the governement to do if they determine that a secret program would better achieve the desired ends? My guess is that they determined a two-pronged approach was best. That in addition to the efforts that are in the light of day, that this clandestine (but legal) program was worth doing even though it was secret.

You point to “a record of deceit”, and I think that is at the heart of many posters’ objection. That’s because they believe that because the administration has lied about other things, that it is lying about some aspect of this. But that is not a real argument against the program itself. It’s a slippery slope based on a aprticular reading of past actions that are not entirely factual and, to a degree, open to interpretation. Do you think you (and others) would be of the same opinion on this issue if you/they believed the people in office were honest and hadn’t lied before?

80

I might have viewed a more honest administration with more tolerance.

However, I have seen no evidence that the publication of this information harms the project. All electronic transfers among all banks are monitored by SWIFT. Knowing that such transaction are being monitored does nothing to eliminate that bottleneck for the terrorists. They can only use the system and try to disguise their transactions (which they were doing already), or they can shift to couriers carrying cash. I find the idea that the terrorists (who include among their members and sympathisers financial advisors and people in various governments) did not know something that any reporter could ferret out with a little digging to be preposterous.