(
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/opinion/22pubed.html?_r=3&pagewanted=2&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20Editor
) Still a lot of explaining to do
Excerpt:
Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective
commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States,
and the absence of any evidence that anyone's private data had actually
been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of 'the most
substantial argument against running the story,' but that reference was
relegated to the bottom of my column.
The source of the data, as my column noted, was the Society for
Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. That
Belgium-based consortium said it had honored administrative subpoenas
from the American government because it has a subsidiary in this
country.
I haven't found any evidence in the intervening months that the
surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although
data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly
secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no
Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are
often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent
source of friction.
Also, there still haven't been any abuses of private data linked to the
program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the
legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided
when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack
of appropriate oversight - to catch any abuses in the absence of media
attention - was a key reason I originally supported publication. I
think, however, that I gave it too much weight.
In addition, I became embarrassed by the how-secret-is-it issue,
although that isn't a cause of my altered conclusion. My original
support for the article rested heavily on the fact that so many people
already knew about the program that serious terrorists also must have
been aware of it. But critical, and clever, readers were quick to point
to a contradiction: the Times article and headline had both emphasized
that a 'secret' program was being exposed. (If one sentence down in the
article had acknowledged that a number of people were probably aware of
the program, both the newsroom and I would have been better able to
address that wave of criticism.)
What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what
admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of
The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity
for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press - two traits that I
warned readers about in my first column.
I say:
No, Mr. Calame, it wasn't Bush's fault. It was yours. And it was
*not* a close call. Everyone directly involved in this is exposed to
treason charges. You all knew what you were doing, and you just didn't
care.
This is far too little, and too late.
Affinity for the underdog, you say? What underdog is that? Just who
was harmed by this program? Just who was helped by you defeating its
purpose?
I'd suggest you grow up, and start taking responsibility for your own
actions, but it's way too late for that. Instead, I suggest you leave
for a country that has no extradition treaty.
( http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/politics.american.html#20061022
) Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)
(
http://fnmarlowe.blogspot.com/2006/10/nyt-begins-to-come-clean-on-swift.html
) Comment at blogger.com
... (
http://theforvm.org/diary/marlowe-nyt-begins-to-come-clean-on-swift-falsehoods
) tacitus.org
(
http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/what-we-need-prescription-for-our.html
) What We Need - a prescription for our times
(
http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/where-i-stand-proverbs-and-axioms-for.html
) Where I Stand - Proverbs and axioms for the real world
( http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/dictionary.html ) the Marlowe
Dictionary
.
|
