Army Lt. slams NYT

[Crookshanks]

June 26, 2006
A word from Lt. Cotton

Lt. Tom Cotton writes this morning from Baghdad with a word for the New York Times:

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,

Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq

========================
Way to go Lt. Cotton!!! I salute you and say a huge "thank you" for your service to our country!!

[xrayzebra]

Bravo for the young Lt. Cotton. I too hope the NYT is held accountable. But
politics being politics I am afraid they wont.

I too say a big "thank you" for your courage and service to our country.

[boutons_]

Darth dickhead and Rove-r have beat the drums, the robots are rising up in unison.

==============

June 28, 2006

Damage Study Urged on Surveillance Reports

By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, June 27 — Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, asked the director of national intelligence on Tuesday to assess any damage to American counterterrorism efforts caused by the disclosure of secret programs to monitor telephone calls and financial transactions.

Mr. Roberts,Republican of Kansas,

( http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif the flat-lands of flat-lining brain waves! )


singled out The New York Times for an article last week that reported that the government was tracking money transfers handled by a banking consortium based in Belgium. The targeting of the financial data, which includes some Americans' transactions, was also reported Thursday by The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal.

( when WSJ starts trashing a Repug administration (this isn't the first time), you know you're DOA http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

In his letter to John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence, Mr. Roberts wrote that "we have been unable to persuade the media to act responsibly and to protect the means by which we protect this nation."

( how about persuading the WH to act responsibly rather than starting phony wars? )

He asked for a formal evaluation of damage to intelligence collection resulting from the revelation of the secret financial monitoring as well as The Times's disclosure in December of the National Security Agency's monitoring of phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans suspected of having links to Al Qaeda.

In London, meanwhile, a human rights group said Tuesday that it had filed complaints in 32 countries alleging that the banking consortium, known as Swift, violated European and Asian privacy laws by giving the United States access to its data.

Simon Davies, director of the group, Privacy International, said the scale of the American monitoring, involving millions of records, "places this disclosure in the realm of a fishing exercise rather than a legally authorized investigation."

The Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, has asked the Justice Ministry to investigate whether Swift violated Belgian law by allowing the United States government access to its data.

The American Civil Liberties Union has condemned the program, and a Chicago lawyer, Steven E. Schwarz, filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Swift on Friday alleging that it had violated United States financial privacy statutes.

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and numerous Republicans in Congress have vigorously defended the financial tracking program as legal and valuable and condemned its public disclosure. They have suggested that the articles might tip off terrorists that their money transfers could be detected.

( Go ahead, punks, make my day. I'm feelin lucky. Prove it!)

Representative J. D. Hayworth, Republican of Arizona, circulated a letter to colleagues on Tuesday asking that The Times's Congressional press credentials be suspended.

Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said any effort to measure damage to intelligence collection would take some time.

"It's not as if the terrorists are going to say, 'Oops! Going to stop doing that,' " Mr. Snow said at a briefing. "But I think it is safe to say that once you provide a piece of intelligence, people on the other side act on it."

The electronic messaging system operated by Swift, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, routes nearly $6 trillion a day in transfers among nearly 8,000 financial institutions.

At a confirmation hearing on Tuesday for Henry M. Paulson Jr., the nominee for Treasury secretary, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, asked whether the monitoring might violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. "I think you'll agree that we could fight terrorism properly and adequately without having a police state in America," Mr. Baucus said.

Mr. Paulson did not express an opinion on the propriety of the Swift monitoring but pledged to study it. "I am going to, if confirmed, be all over it, make sure I learn everything there is to learn, make sure I understand the law thoroughly," he said.

( Why work do your legal homework, asshole? Just as AG Gonzalez. Poco Al will give you whatever legal mis/interpretation/fantasy that dickhead wants http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

Democratic staff members said they had pressed Treasury officials in recent days for a fuller accounting of which members of Congress were briefed on the program and whether notification requirements under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, invoked by President Bush days after Sept. 11, were met.

Treasury officials have told Congressional staff members that they briefed the full intelligence committees of both houses about a month ago, after inquiries by The Times, according to one Democratic aide who spoke on condition of anonymity. Some members were told of the program several years ago, but the Treasury Department has not provided a list of who was informed when, the aide said.

Democrats said they hoped to get a clearer idea of the legal foundations for the program, how it was monitored, and how long it will be allowed to continue under the president's invocation of emergency powers.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a New York Democrat who serves on the House financial services committee, said Tuesday: "The administration is basing its actions on a 1970's law that never envisioned a state of perpetual emergency. It wasn't meant to become the status quo. That is why Congress needs to look at its current use."

Victor Comras, a former State Department official who served on a United Nations counterterrorism advisory group, pointed out on The Counterterrorism Blog that a 2002 United Nations report had noted with approval that the United States was monitoring international financial systems.

( wow, aren't we lucky the terrorists creative and discplined enough to blow up the WTC don't have a clue about SWIFT and EFT monitoring until this week? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

While providing no details, the report mentioned Swift and similar organizations, saying "the United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions."

Dan Bilefsky contributed reporting from Brussels for this article, andCarl Hulse and Eric Lichtblau from Washington.

[xrayzebra]

Typical boutons liberal regressive post. Looks like he would get tired of being
on the losing side. But some people enjoy agony.

[John Doe]

True Americans would understand that things need to be done for the security of our military and the integrity of our country. Let them tap my phones to find these religous scumbag fanatics, I have nothing to hide.

[boutons_]

"to find these religous scumbag fanatics"

so naively trusting. Nobody is against preventing crime. The problem is abuse of such powers.

The Repugs, the WH, Rove, RNC are totally untrustworthy with unchecked power to snoop phones, email, bank accounts. Industrial espionage is VERY big business that nobody wants to talk about. I can corp campaign donors buying snooped info on competitors.

Anybody who thinks the Rove and Repugs won't abuse snooping powers for partisan political gain is a babe in the woods. What a bunch of lying, incompetent scumbags.

btw, Dems can't be trusted, either, but it's the Repugs running the federal govt now. The Dems will be victims, not perpertators.

[boutons_]

Lt. Cotton isn't serving his country, he's serving the WH Repugs, who aren't serving the country's security interests by invading. Cotton is just another employee trying to do his job, but his job definition is fucked over by the Repugs.

[clambake]

I agree. Wire tap, bug, monitor anything you like. Nothing to hide here. Bush has only 2 years to do something right.

[Crookshanks]

Lt. Cotton isn't serving his country

What an asinine statement! Boutons, you have to be the most repulsive, hateful person on this board! I'd like for you to tell Lt. Cotton that to his face - I think he'd have something different to say on the subject!

I just have such a hard time believing someone could as mean and hateful as you are and really believe what you say.

[xrayzebra]

"to find these religous scumbag fanatics"

so naively trusting. Nobody is against preventing crime. The problem is abuse of such powers.

The Repugs, the WH, Rove, RNC are totally untrustworthy with unchecked power to snoop phones, email, bank accounts. Industrial espionage is VERY big business that nobody wants to talk about. I can corp campaign donors buying snooped info on competitors.

Anybody who thinks the Rove and Repugs won't abuse snooping powers for partisan political gain is a babe in the woods. What a bunch of lying, incompetent scumbags.

btw, Dems can't be trusted, either, but it's the Repugs running the federal govt now. The Dems will be victims, not perpertators.


You mean like "freedom of the Press" crap. Is that what you mean
boutons?

[xrayzebra]

Lt. Cotton isn't serving his country, he's serving the WH Repugs, who aren't serving the country's security interests by invading. Cotton is just another employee trying to do his job, but his job definition is fucked over by the Repugs.

Gee I thought you supported the troops, Mr. Liberal. You changed you
mind, what little you have left......pun intended.
:lol

[FromWayDowntown]

You mean like "freedom of the Press" crap.

Ah yes. That piddling Constitutional guarantee is "crap."

The NYT may have overstepped its bounds and exercised poor judgment, but anyone who thinks that there shouldn't be a free press in this country and that the press shouldn't be permitted to make decisions that are independent of government directive is, IMO, hostile to guarantees that are at the very heart of the civil liberties that the Bill of Rights was meant to protect.

[boutons_]

Cotton knows damn well who his boss is, has NOTHING to do with me, and who is responsbile for wasting the lives of 2500+ of Cotton's colleagues.

Calling out dubya is hateful? GMAFB

How about you admitting that dubya(really dickhead) has murdered 2500 of your beloved US military in Iraq with their bullshit Repug war?

dubya/dickhead/Repugs DO NOT EQUAL the USA, but poor fuckers like Cotton are sworn to letting dubya waste their lives.

[clambake]

If people were prosecuted for having poor judgement, then our president would not be named bush.

I would tell Cotton that I simpathize with his positon, but I don't expect him to rock the boat of his commander and chief.

Some of his grief is misplaced.

[xrayzebra]

Ah yes. That piddling Constitutional guarantee is "crap."

The NYT may have overstepped its bounds and exercised poor judgment, but anyone who thinks that there shouldn't be a free press in this country and that the press shouldn't be permitted to make decisions that are independent of government directive is, IMO, hostile to guarantees that are at the very heart of the civil liberties that the Bill of Rights was meant to protect.

Ah yes, but who set the boundries? The press itself, as the NYT has or
the Congress or Courts? Where are those boundries? Care to explain all that
to me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

True Americans would understand that things need to be done for the security of our military and the integrity of our country. Let them tap my phones to find these religous scumbag fanatics, I have nothing to hide.


religious scumbags? republicans or al-qaeda?

[ChumpDumper]

Charge the WSJ with treason or STFU about this.

[xrayzebra]

Cotton knows damn well who his boss is, has NOTHING to do with me, and who is responsbile for wasting the lives of 2500+ of Cotton's colleagues.

Calling out dubya is hateful? GMAFB

How about you admitting that dubya(really dickhead) has murdered 2500 of your beloved US military in Iraq with their bullshit Repug war?

dubya/dickhead/Repugs DO NOT EQUAL the USA, but poor fuckers like Cotton are sworn to letting dubya waste their lives.




The President has murdered no one and you know it. You are wrong
as two left feet. And you know it. The terrorist killed our men, pure
and simple and they damn well will kill you if they get half the chance.
And don't you ever, ever forget that fact.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Amazing that we hear the conservative 'selective outrage' once again but not a peep about the unecessary war in Iraq. I am still trying to figure out the Iraq war has anything to do with our freedom. Dumbya sure does talk about it ..

[xrayzebra]

Amazing that we hear the conservative 'selective outrage' once again but not a peep about the unecessary war in Iraq. I am still trying to figure out the Iraq war has anything to do with our freedom. Dumbya sure does talk about it ..

I consider the war a necessary evil. I have no outrage except for people
who think we aren't at war and never were. Your reasoning is way off
base. You think, if we hadn't gone into Iraq everything would be just
peachy creamy. Everyone would love us and we would live in harmony with
mother earth, gas prices would be low and on.....and on.....and on.....
:rolleyes

[George Gervin's Afro]

I consider the war a necessary evil. I have no outrage except for people
who think we aren't at war and never were. Your reasoning is way off
base. You think, if we hadn't gone into Iraq everything would be just
peachy creamy. Everyone would love us and we would live in harmony with
mother earth, gas prices would be low and on.....and on.....and on.....
:rolleyes


We are at war with Islamo facists..Iraq became a part of the war on terror only because dick & the boys said so. I am outraged that we are sacrificing our blood because it 'might' indirectly help the USA in the long run. I am not opposed to military action what I am opposed to is someone misleading me in oreder for me to support it. Agree with me or not but Iraq has become the "might', 'maybe','if' war. It might help the US if Iraq transforms into a democracy which 'may' help transform the Middle East and 'if' it does we will benefit. It started as an imminent threat war ..now you and all other conservatives have fallen in line and accepted the revised reasons as to why we invded Iraq..

[FromWayDowntown]

Ah yes, but who set the boundries? The press itself, as the NYT has or
the Congress or Courts? Where are those boundries? Care to explain all that
to me.

The Constitution is pretty much unequivocal in providing that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of the press. I'd say that the Founding Fathers very clearly took that question out of Congressional hands. Until someone suggests in a court in this country that the NYT has violated some other law, I'd think the Times' editorial decisions are its own -- and even if there's a lawsuit, the Times will likely have First Amendment protection, at least to some point.

Thus, to answer your question, it is the Times that sets the boundaries, just as the Framers of the Constitution intended.

[Spurminator]

I think there are instances where leaking information to the Press should constitute Treason. This instance, however, is not one of them. Anyone looking to use this report an impetus to re-examine the Press' moral duties in wartime Military coverage is jumping the gun.

[ChumpDumper]

Cotton is going to run for Congress.

Book it.

[John Doe]

We are at war with Islamo facists..Iraq became a part of the war on terror only because dick & the boys said so. I am outraged that we are sacrificing our blood because it 'might' indirectly help the USA in the long run. I am not opposed to military action what I am opposed to is someone misleading me in oreder for me to support it. Agree with me or not but Iraq has become the "might', 'maybe','if' war. It might help the US if Iraq transforms into a democracy which 'may' help transform the Middle East and 'if' it does we will benefit. It started as an imminent threat war ..now you and all other conservatives have fallen in line and accepted the revised reasons as to why we invded Iraq..
I'm not a politically savy person like some of you seem to be but in my opinion unless this affects you in some way, except for the price of oil, what does it matter to you why we're in Iraq, your not the one serving. I am active duty military and I know what I signed up for.

[boutons_]

"what does it matter to you why we're in Iraq"

A lot of us care deeply how the USA's lethal powers are used to destroy life and property, especially when invading other countries and starting wars of fucking choice, and especially when real and direct enemies of USA are in lots of places EXCEPT Iraq.

"I am active duty military"

If you don't understand what I say above, you're aren't worth my time to explain it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

tom cotton sounds like a fake name IMO

[clambake]

I'm guessing that Lt. Cotton didn't have to ask his parents for protective gear.

[xrayzebra]

The Constitution is pretty much unequivocal in providing that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of the press. I'd say that the Founding Fathers very clearly took that question out of Congressional hands. Until someone suggests in a court in this country that the NYT has violated some other law, I'd think the Times' editorial decisions are its own -- and even if there's a lawsuit, the Times will likely have First Amendment protection, at least to some point.

Thus, to answer your question, it is the Times that sets the boundaries, just as the Framers of the Constitution intended.

That means, that they can give away the plans of anything we do to
protect ourselves. Right?

And I will suggest they have violated the laws of this land.

If you think, and our lawmakers, agree that the first amendment protects
someone who disclose our way of protecting ourselves. Then you are
an absolute, blithering idiot.

[FromWayDowntown]

That means, that they can give away the plans of anything we do to
protect ourselves. Right?

And I will suggest they have violated the laws of this land.

If you think, and our lawmakers, agree that the first amendment protects
someone who disclose our way of protecting ourselves. Then you are
an absolute, blithering idiot.

If they commit espionage (or break some other law) and it can be proven, the First Amendment provides no protection. But until you can prove that the Times broke a recognized law (and not the law as xray sees it), the First Amendment right is fairly significant.

The point of your question, I thought, was whether Congress has any power to regulate the press or whether that's left to the press and the courts. My point was that Congress has virtually no power to limit what press does.

[John Doe]

"what does it matter to you why we're in Iraq"

A lot of us care deeply how the USA's lethal powers are used to destroy life and property, especially when invading other countries and starting wars of fucking choice, and especially when real and direct enemies of USA are in lots of places EXCEPT Iraq.

"I am active duty military"

If you don't understand what I say above, you're aren't worth my time to explain it.

Geez, nice reply. I'm hurt. You must be a member of Comrade Sheehan's thumb sucking group.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Geez, nice reply. I'm hurt. You must be a member of Comrade Sheehan's thumb sucking group.


Ok I'll simplify it for you. There quite a few Americans who think this war was unecessary and that since we carry 'the' big stick we should use it as a last resort rather than irresponsibly. Better ditto head? Or do I need to say "liberals are evil folks and I am right 98.5 % of the time"..

[George Gervin's Afro]

That means, that they can give away the plans of anything we do to
protect ourselves. Right?

And I will suggest they have violated the laws of this land.

If you think, and our lawmakers, agree that the first amendment protects
someone who disclose our way of protecting ourselves. Then you are
an absolute, blithering idiot.


In zebra's world govt can do anything it wants in secret.. scary thought

[ChumpDumper]

Still waiting on the WSJ indictments....

[John Doe]

Ok I'll simplify it for you. There quite a few Americans who think this war was unecessary and that since we carry 'the' big stick we should use it as a last resort rather than irresponsibly. Better ditto head? Or do I need to say "liberals are evil folks and I am right 98.5 % of the time"..

OOOOOO.....look out, boutons got back up!!

[Nesterofish]

OOOOOO.....look out, boutons got back up!!
:lol

Since boutons doesn't like beiung protected by the U.S. Armed Forces, maybe we should send him to Iraq and let him fend for himself. I'm sure the insurgents will treat him real good since he hates Bush so much.

[boutons_]

"Since boutons doesn't like beiung protected by the U.S. Armed Forces"

yo dumbfuck, the US military isn't protecting the US from anybody in Iraq.

[DarkReign]

:lol

Since boutons doesn't like beiung protected by the U.S. Armed Forces, maybe we should send him to Iraq and let him fend for himself. I'm sure the insurgents will treat him real good since he hates Bush so much.

Boutons and insurgents have exactly what in common with the statements he makes?

Jesus-fucking-Christ, if I were a conservative like xray, I would be completely fucking embarassed by my colleagues here at Spurstalk.

Think about this for a moment.....

NBADan is a total leftist, IMO. BUT! He can back his shit up. Which makes him legit.

Same with boutons_ vitriol-laced statements.

But if I were X, I would be thinking to myself "Please God, dont let the neo-con idiots show up in this thread. They are idiots even to me..."

Then..

dun...dun.....DUN!

They arrive, ignorance in tow, crouched, ready for inaction and intolerance.

[boutons_]

Nestorshit,

Did you notice the military has recently raised the active duty age a few years?

Not enough red-staters who voted for dubya have the balls to back up their votes and go die in dubya/dickhead's phony war.

[Nbadan]

Ole Jack Raccardi was up to his old tricks again tonight, calling the NYT exposure of the SWIFT program an act of treason. He even had the audacity to compare it to the Rosenburgs and other past treasonous acts. I would be laugable if so many people didn't take Jack so seriously. I mean, all the wingnut hosts on OAI have zero credibility, so some people actually believe Jack cause of his long-time connection on SA radio. Raccardi did mention that the existance of a program to track financial records had been reported before, what Jack didn't mention is that it was the WH's own personnel who exposed the supposedly secret program to Reuters reporters years ago.

Ah, but let the wingnut media iswift-boating of the NYT continue, after all, who knows what other secrets the Bush Administration is hiding that they may still expose? And this is where the real meat of this attack against the NYT is centered, and not in the fact that they had the audacity to report on a program that was hardly secret, except that is, to those will never know better in the first place.

[xrayzebra]

Dan, if you had a brain, you would take it out and play with it. You and your
buddy boutons. What dopes.

[clambake]

Zebra, you always complain about the media, but can't wait to quote them.


P.S. I love your new friend nester.

[xrayzebra]

So and you have me to complain about. And as long as you are picking on me you
are leaving someone else alone. How bout that.

And obviously you have not noticed that I don't complain about all media. Just the
liberal media. I am after all a conservative. I love some of the Liberal media because
it really shows who and what they believe. I just wished we could put sound bites on
here. Damn, Pelosi and Reid and Kennedy and others say some really, really great
stuff. And Kerry and best of all President Howard Dean. Oops, he didn't make
President did he. Oh, well he still thinks he is. He is head of the DNC.

[clambake]

Whether you like it or not, Nester ia a more accurate representative of the conservative party.

[xrayzebra]

Ah, now you have really hurt my feelings. I may go off and pout.

[clambake]

I think your smart, just misguided. I feel for ya, stuck in that right wing ignorance pool.

[xrayzebra]

:depressed when :flypig but I do love :stirpot: and :wakeup

[ChumpDumper]

So the treason indictments are out, right?

Right?

[Yonivore]

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/poster033.jpg

[DarkReign]

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/poster033.jpg

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc.jpg

[Oh, Gee!!]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc.jpg

pwnt.

[xrayzebra]

Well now we have the WSJ and NYT at each others throat. Here
is a nice little article. WSJ kinda says what many have said.

Sulzberger Responds to 'WSJ' Editorial Slamming the 'NYT'
Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr.


By E&P Staff

Published: June 30, 2006 12:30 PM ET

NEW YORK After remaining mum for the past week, even as controversy swirled around newspapers' revealing the banking records surveillance program, the Wall Street Journal editoral page weighed in today. Although the Journal published its own story just hours after The New York Times -- which has taken the most heat -- its editorial defended its own action while blasting the Times.

It even included a personal slam at Times' publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and said the Times did not want to win, but rather obstruct, the war on terror.

Sulzberger responded this afternoon: "I know many of the reporters and editors at The Wall Street Journal and have greater faith in their journalistic excellence than does the Editorial Page of their own paper. I, for one, do not believe they were unaware of the importance of what they were publishing nor oblivious to the impact such a story would have."

Among other things, the Journal editorial criticized the Times for using the Journal as "its ideological wingman" to deflect criticism from the right. It pointed out that the news and editorial departments are quite separate at the Journal, and the editorial side there would have opposed printing the article the kind of article the Times ran.

Finally, it explained how it got its own story, then slammed the Times for a wide range of sins, claiming that the "current political clamor" is "warning to the press about the path the Times is walking."

The Times has defended its reporting, saying publication has served America's public interest. Its executive editor, Bill Keller, said in a statement on Thursday that the paper took seriously the risks of reporting on intelligence.

"We have on many occasions withheld information when lives were at stake," Keller said. "However, the administration simply did not make a convincing case that describing our efforts to monitor international banking presented such a danger. Indeed, the administration itself has talked publicly and repeatedly about its successes in the area of financial surveillance."

A Times editorial earlier this week stated: "Ever since Sept. 11, the Bush administration has taken the necessity of heightened vigilance against terrorism and turned it into a rationale for an extraordinarily powerful executive branch, exempt from the normal checks and balances of our system of government. It has created powerful new tools of surveillance and refused, almost as a matter of principle, to use normal procedures that would acknowledge that either Congress or the courts have an oversight role."

Journal editors have not responded to repeated requests from E&P for comment this week.

Here are a few excerpts from Friday's Journal editorial.
*

We recount all this because more than a few commentators have tried to link the Journal and Times at the hip. On the left, the motive is to help shield the Times from political criticism. On the right, the goal is to tar everyone in the "mainstream media." But anyone who understands how publishing decisions are made knows that different newspapers make up their minds differently.

Some argue that the Journal should have still declined to run the antiterror story. However, at no point did Treasury officials tell us not to publish the information. And while Journal editors knew the Times was about to publish the story, Treasury officials did not tell our editors they had urged the Times not to publish. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a "leak," it was entirely authorized....

The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.

So, for example, it promulgates a double standard on "leaks," deploring them in the case of Valerie Plame and demanding a special counsel when the leaker was presumably someone in the White House and the journalist a conservative columnist. But then it hails as heroic and public-spirited the leak to the Times itself that revealed the National Security Agency's al Qaeda wiretaps.

Mr. Keller's open letter explaining his decision to expose the Treasury program all but admits that he did so because he doesn't agree with, or believe, the Bush Administration. "Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress," he writes, and "some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight." Since the Treasury story broke, as it happens, no one but Congressman Ed Markey and a few cranks have even objected to the program, much less claimed illegality.

Perhaps Mr. Keller has been listening to his boss, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who in a recent commencement address apologized to the graduates because his generation "had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.

"Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way," the publisher continued. "You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights," and so on.

Forgive us if we conclude that a newspaper led by someone who speaks this way to college seniors has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.

[ChumpDumper]

Indict them or STFU.