Times Sat on Wiretapping Story for a Year
Monday December 19, 2005
On Friday, the New York Times said that it had sat on the story about warrantless, domestic electronic surveillance, "for a year" at the request of the White House. In part, Executive Editor Bill Keller said:
"The fact that the government eavesdrops on those suspected of terrorist connections is well-known. The fact that the NSA can legally monitor communications within the United States with a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is also public information.What would have happened in the 2004 election had the Times broken this story in October 2004? Keller does not make it clear whether "last year" means a literal 12 months; the phrasing, in fact, suggests that it does not.
"A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security...
"As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time...
"What is new is that the NSA has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant.
"It is that expansion of authority -- not the need for a robust anti-terror intelligence operation -- that prompted debate within the government, and that is the subject of the article."
Technorati Profile
Technorati tags: Patriot Act, Politics
gada.be tags: Patriot Act , Politics
Comments
Why is it that the average American seems so unconcerned about giving up its civil rights and privacy rights? What else is there? What have we got without them?
Everyone should be jumping up and screaming about this. I am afraid the public seems more interested in the latest TV drama or celebrity scandal. It’s 1984, and the TV is the pacifier drug, TV and a moutain of unhealthy processed food (subsidized by the government).
Sometimes I think the American consumer exists to satisfy corporate greed. But try waking up the average American to what’s really going on. Don’t think you can.
Scares the hell out of me!
I apologize for mispelled words; I am dyslexic. Not ignorant.
Hi, Michael — thanks for commenting on these older stories. It’s a good reminder (poke) for me to write a followup based on last week’s court proceedings.