Stating upfront that there is legitimate room for thoughtful disagreement on the topic of the government’s various anti-terror programs and the issue of whether the NYT (or the press in general) should or should not discuss them, I must confess that I am beginning to wonder if a lot of the firestorm surrounding the current revelations is being generated by people who have actually read the piece in question. I am convinced that at least some of my commenters are reacting not to any details for the newspaper story, but simply to the fact that the Time “revealed” a “secret” program. The outrage begets more outrage, but where’s the meat of the argument?
If one reads the rather lengthy NYT piece on the subject, one is left wondering what specific details in the story is going to lead to substantial alteration of al Qaeda’s activities. The story reveals some descriptive details about where the data comes from, but it isn’t as if there is information that would allow for avoiding detection.
And the part that none of the critics seem to be concerned about is the fact that non-terrorist financial data is being collected by the federal government sans warrant, which does raise legality questions.
Beyond this particular story is a serious question: how much access to the basic information that makes up our lives are we willing to cede to the hands of federal bureaucrats in the name of possibly locating terrorists? And, even if we cede this information to the federal bureaucrats, will it create an efficacious manner of catching these individuals?
These are real questions that need to be debated. Simply saying that the programs are secret and legal, and so don’t worry about them is to cede far too much discretion to the government.
Sphere: Related Content
Oops, looks like the NYT likes it both ways no surprise.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014523.html
Comment by c.v. — Tuesday, June 27, 2024 @ 3:50 pm
The Free Press and the State
Glenn Greenwald makes a generally compelling but incomplete about which, more in a moment case for a hands-off approach to media disclosure of classified information. His three primary points are…
Trackback by QandO — Tuesday, June 27, 2024 @ 4:24 pm
I’m finding this fascinating, not because I am particularly interested in this story (I’m not), but because I’m having a lot of trouble figuring out the center of your position on this … and I usually don’t have that trouble.
For example, the statement: “Simply saying that the programs are secret and legal, and so don’t worry about them is to cede far too much discretion to the government” is breathtaking in its scope, since the practical implication is that the government cannot have any secret programs whatsoever; by this standard, we would need to have a public debate on every program. I’m having trouble reconciling that with your positions on a variety of other things.
I will say, though, that I do have to disagree with one of your statements, which is that “the part that none of the critics seem to be concerned about is the fact that non-terrorist financial data is being collected by the federal government sans warrant, which does raise legality questions.” Given the incredible amount of paperwork the federal government already generates on my non-terrorist financial data (especially since I sometimes have business intertests abroad), this whole “warrant” issue seems a red herring. With everything from FDIC oversight, to tax withholding, to requiring annual income reporting (quarterly for businesses), it’s hard for me to imagine any domestic financial data the federal government doesn’t already have access to.
Comment by Richard Scott Nokes — Tuesday, June 27, 2024 @ 4:52 pm
Scott,
All fair enough. I will endeavor to hone the presentation of my position.
Right now, however, I have some other work that needs to be done (although I would rather blog…).
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, June 27, 2024 @ 6:54 pm