Opinion: The SWIFT Publication Controversy
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
The decision by the New York Times and L.A. Times to publish articles exposing a secret government program that tracks international bank transfers has drawn conserable fire. Both papers flouted a government request not to publish, and posted their versions online simultaneously last Friday. (The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post also published follow-up articles.).
President Bush today described the decision to publish as ‘disgraceful’. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has called for the criminal prosecution of the NYT‘s ‘treasonour’ behavior, and the conservative National Review seconded the motion. Both papers’ articles included statements by their respective editors maintaining that the exposure of the program was in the public interest. NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller expanded on that statement in an open letter. Meanwhile, LAT columnist Patt Morrison interviewed Washington Bureau Chief Doyle McManus on KPCC (archived here).
The blogosphere reaction has been strong on both sides, with much of the criticism focusing on the other Times:
* Conservative Radio Host Hugh Hewitt bemoaned the impact this would have on national security, responding to McManus and Keller:
I think it would be a very good thing if we could chill the media’s publication of national security secrets the release of which aid terrorists. This very narrow restraint on the press in no way fetters its general and robust freedom to investigate and publish.
* Patrick Frey at Patterico’s Pontifications joins Hewitt against McManus, and ponders the legality of program, while defending the Wall Street Journal):
Among the editors’ primary concerns in deciding whether to publish the story [...] is whether the program was legal, whether it had adequate safeguards and controls, and whether it was subject to sufficient oversight. [...] The odd thing is that the articles published by the Los Angeles Times and New York Times indicate that the probable answers to all these questions was “yes” — yet the newspapers decided to publish anyway.
* Heather MacDonald and Gabriel Schoenfeld, writing in the Weekly Standard, attack the NYT and argue why it should be prosectued:
BY NOW IT’S UNDENIABLE: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.
* Roy Greenslade of the UK’s left-wing Guardian newspaper disagrees:
The sad truth is that the New York Times is making up for the fact that it did such a poor job in holding the Bush administration to account for going to war in the first place. Its new-found spirit must not be crushed.
* The Progressive‘s Matthew Rothschild also defends the Times:
What King, Cheney, Bush, Gonzales, and many rightwing pundits don’t seem to appreciate is that we, the American people, need to have a free press to check the excesses of government.
* The Volokh Conspiracy has compiled some of its recent blog posts about prosecuting journalists. A choice quote from Volokh’s Jonathan Alder:
Sensitive information should be treated sensitively, even by journalists. Conservatives, however, should be wary of novel applications of vaguely worded criminal statutes, particularly in the face of clear constitutional text.