To the Public Editor, New York Times: Re: Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence Public Editor Column January 1, 2006
I write to bring out two overriding considerations not explicitly considered in the article "Behind the Eavesdropping Story...": While the Times withheld this information for at least a year (obviously well before the '04 elections) and only disclosed when publication of a scoop elsewhere was imminent, there is further onus here: unspecified numbers of American residents were spied on by the NSA in the interim and doubtless still are, to unknown harmful effect - especially since the information has reportedly been passed by the NSA to local police, other government entities and undisclosed additional recipients. Second, with the opening of a criminal inquiry into the leak, there is an ominous chilling effect on whistle-blowers, with a right and a responsibility under the defense of necessity in a matter of this gravity to come forward with information. Resort to national security as justification is patently inadequate. Without even at the least applying for covering authorization to the court housed within its DOJ, what warrant is there for government to assume that those threatening security at this juncture, aware of the risk, spread their intentions on accessible media, so as in any way to excuse a secretive government's flouting of basic first and fourth amendment rights? We can only expect and hope that, with the information belatedly out, the two other branches of government will be goaded by public concern over loss of our civil liberties to act to preserve basic constitutional guarantees. Ralph Johansen > [Original Message] > From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 1/1/2006 2:16:38 AM > Subject: [PEN-L] NY Times ombudsman upset with paper's silence on wiretapping > > NY Times, January 1, 2006 > The Public Editor > Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence > By BYRON CALAME > > THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it > said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is > eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully > inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation > for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency. clip
