The Times on Banking Records

As I'm sure you're aware, while I was gone the New York Times outed a secret program to track terrorist financing, a program that was apparently legal, clearly effective, and had negative consequences. . .  uh, well, those were sort of hypothetical, actually.

The Los Angeles Times and the Post went with the story as well (I gather the Wall St. Journal ran it, but since I don't get that paper and it isn't accessible on the web, it isn't clear to me whether they ran their own story or simply piled on once it was on the wires.) (If you're behind on the story you can catch up via the National Review's media blog: just keep scrolling.)

This morning the Times' executive editor writes a letter to Times readers (ostensibly to those who have contacted him) explaining his decision. It's really quite stunning.

What I find depressing is the Times return to the old rhetorical move of identifying all critique as being by definition "conservative," and essentially arguing implicitly that since it's conservative it must be purely agenda-driven and is therefore not worthy of a serious response.

For awhile there (particularly, I thought, via the columns of the first Public Editor, Mr. Okrent) srious criticism was taken seriously.

It will be interesting to see if the new Public Editor takes this up, and if so, how he chooses to do so.

I may link to more material as time permits, but the Captain's analysis is, I think, quite excellent.

Update: Tom Maguire also has some fine comments, focusing on accountability and the fact that the laws regarding classification of national security information are also, you know, the law of the land.

Update: Wretchard has the text of a letter written by Treas. Sec. Snow to the Times. I am paticularly struck by his listing of those who when asked by the administration, spoke to the Times and asked it not to publish. Note particularly the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, whose word seemed to be virtually final with the press at one point, and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. Since so many are now arguing that the greatest justification for "outing" this program is that it lacked congressional oversight, the lack of congressional takers for that argument is quite interesting. No racing to the cameras on this one, did you notice?

Too bad the administration isn't willing to release specific names.

Comments

[davod]

I do not know what the administration can do about this. The leftists and Congressional Democrats are already starting on the oppression of the press theme. It seems to me as if they are trotting out campaign slogans.

If I was not a cynic I might think that the whole idea is to goad the administration into something that will look bad come election time.

The administration has to find some way to track down leakers and expose them. Not just punish them if they can but publish their pictures and tell everyone what they did. Sure, they will achieve a level of notoriety among some groups but I would suggest the majority will see them for what they are, betrayers of the public trust.

Daylight and fresh air is sometimes the best disinfectant. Whistle blowers often use the phrase as an explanation of why they acted the way they did. Daylight and fresh air is equally apt as a remedy for those who take the citizens money while betraying them to the press.