At Once Too Little and Too Much

Here is the letter that The New York Times' managing editor, Bill Keller, has sent to the no-doubt numerous readers who have written to protest the Times' decision to run the story telling terrorists about government surveillance of international financial transactions.

Keller discloses at once too little and too much. For example, he insists that "We spoke to others — national security experts not serving in the Administration — for their counsel." Wouldn't it be interesting to know who they were -- and what they advised? Keller never tells us.

On The Hugh Hewitt Show last Friday, however, the Beltway Boys asserted that even John Murtha had asked the paper not to go forward. Without more, that fact suggests that Keller's assertion may be deliberately disingenuous, insofar as it leads the reader to believe that the non-Administration officials approved the running of the story.

As for disclosing too much, Keller actually notes that

we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it.

If that's the case, then, how, exactly, is it dispositively in the public interest for an effective, secret program to be disclosed?

Keller continues

That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it.

Yes, better to preempt the President of the United States, vested with the power of Commander in Chief by Article II of the Constitution, and substitute some untrained journalists' judgment for that of the duly elected executive and his national security team during wartime.

By the Times' logic, no information about ongoing programs -- or even war plans -- would ever be secure from disclosure, because by the Times' lights, "ultimately the electorate" has the right to "know about" everything, and not just after the clear and present danger has passed, when evaluation and consideration may be appropriate.

Let's all hope that the Times doesn't find out about any present-day analogue to Josephine Baker or the dog doo transmitters of World War II. Because under the express (non-)logic of its managing editor, it would presumably be preempting the role of legislators, courts and the electorate not to breathlessly disclose the spy and the device ASAP, whatever the jepordy to the forces of freedom.

Finally, never believe, despite all Keller's ringing words, that The Times has been in any way "courageous" by running this story. The predictable lionizing (exemplified by this entry on the Columbia Journalism Review) is just one more breach in the now virtually nonexistent "bond of trust" between the American people and the MSM.

It is, above all, a sad and ugly abuse of the First Amendment.