On the Times’ overreaching

I think Heather MacDonald has an excellent summary of the fundamental errors lying behind the NY Times’ hubristic thinking that it is the appropriate gatekeeper of this nation’s security secrets:

The bottom line is this: No classified secret necessary to fight terrorism is safe once the Times hears of it, at least as long as the Bush administration is in power. The Times justifies its national security breaches by the mere hypothetical possibility of abuse–without providing any evidence that this financial tracking program, or any other classified antiterror initiative that it has revealed, actually has been abused. To the contrary, the paper reports that one employee was taken off the Swift program for conducting a search that did not obviously fall within the guidelines.

The truth the Times evades is that while every power, public or private, can be misused, the mere possibility of abuse does not mean that a necessary power should be discarded. Instead, the rational response is to create checks that minimize the risk of abuse. Under the Times‘s otherworldly logic, the United States might be better off with no government at all, because governmental power can be abused. It should not have newspapers, because the power of the press can be abused to harm the national interest (as the Times so amply demonstrates). Police forces should be disbanded, because police officers can overstep their authority. National security wiretaps? Heavens! Expose all of them.

The Times implies a second reason it ignored the government’s fervent requests to protect the program’s secrecy: Large databases were involved. The Times has an attack of the vapors whenever evidence of terrorist planning is found in databases, reasoning that any program to harvest that evidence is a privacy threat and should be exposed. Such logic, if taken seriously, would mean an end to all computerized investigations and would create an impregnable shield to terrorist activity in cyberspace. Anything a terrorist does that is recorded by computers will by its very nature be interspersed among records of millions if not billions or trillions of innocent transactions by unrelated parties. That fact alone should not disable the government from seeking the evidence; it merely means that the government should follow existing procedures governing the collection of evidence–as, in the case of the Swift program, it has.

Essentially, the Times is saying that Americans should trust its little self-selected coterie of Manhattan journalists over the elected officials of the United States.  And anyone who thinks that way has already gone a long way towards a scary megalomania that needs to be controlled.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. mamapajamas says

    From the article, this is an excellent commentary on the NYT situation:

    Under the Times’s otherworldly
    logic, the United States might be better off with no government at all, because governmental power can be abused. It should not have newspapers, because the power of the press can be abused to harm the national interest (as the Times so amply demonstrates). Police forces should be disbanded, because police officers can overstep their authority. National security wiretaps? Heavens! Expose all of them.

    This pretty much says it all.

  2. jg says

    It’s my bias, of course, but this whole posting, including your thoughts, BW, has a Marxian feel to it. That is, you have outlined a self selected coterie who rules ‘for the good of the electorate’ through lies, intimidation, and propaganda.

  3. says

    Well, Marx had to get a class based society to get a classless society. Does that make sense? Yes. Will it work? No.

    When Marx said he was against such and such, what actually ended up happening was that his followers kept using such and such to fight the same such and such. The cycle of stupidity all over again.

    It’s too bad Bush won’t intimidate the NYTimes. Those “principles” again, I mentioned before.

Leave a Reply