The White House has come out with teeth bared and guns blazing against the New York Times for letting the public know about a secret government program that involves domestic collection and surveillance of private banking information without court supervision. President Bush alleges that the publication of the news story was irresponsible and that it undermined his ‘war of terror.” The far right wing faction of the House of Representatives pushed through a “sense of the house” resolution publicly rebuking the New York Times for publishing the story. These actions reflect that the critics of the press may be operating in a different reality than the rest of us.
Historically, of course, the constitutional principle of freedom of the press has severely limited any government or political attempts to muffle news stories or suppress publication of important information. When the press has agreed to delay publication in the past, it has been based upon some demonstration that the publication would harm a public or governmental interests override the public’s right to know, at least temporarily. Disclosure of military offensives planned is a good example.
In an era when corporate management influence colored by close political ties and the power of influence peddlers has invaded the editorial offices of major media companies, the standards for suppressing news or burying coverage has shifted from demonstrated substantive harm toward political expediency. In some cases, politicians and their spinmeisters have brokered “access” to government officials in exchange for publishing or withholding stories based upon whether they are favorable to the government. Thus, in any such dispute, it would be fair to assume that the press would bend toward the Bush administration when the question is a close one. This instance was not even a close call.
Despite all the public condemnation and allegations, the Bush administration has yet to explain precisely how the publication of the story has caused any harm to any US citizen or legitimate governmental interest. The US government policy of interdiction of financial backing for individuals or organizations suspected of terrorist activities is hardly a secret or news event. The implicit assumption of that policy is that processes used to discover and interdict funding would be in compliance with US and international laws. The only “newsworthy” aspect of the story published by the New York Times was that the processes and methods used by the Bush administration in its secret surveillance program may be in violation of laws prohibiting domestic spying and requiring court supervision and oversight of searches and seizure of bank accounts.
If the information has been gathered legally, the Bush administration has a right to continue the program. The public still has a right to know about the types of governmental actions that are undertaken in its name and purportedly in its best interests. On the other hand, if the program and gathering of information is not in compliance with laws, the only harm to the Bush administration is that its illegal activities have been exposed. In all these atmospherics, no explanation has been advanced to show how the public awareness of the program could cause harm to any US citizen or promote any terrorist activity. The talismanic phrase, “damage to the war on terror,” rings more and more hollow. There is no substance to the claim. It sounds more like the Bush government is crying foul when caught with hand in the cookie jar. Embarrassing the government for violating the law is not a threat to national security; indeed it may represent the fulfillment of the constitutionally protected responsibility of the press to expose government activities that undermine principles of democracy. Once again, the New York Times has called attention to the question: Can you uphold and protect the "rule of law" by acting above the law and claiming the right to act in a lawless manner?
No comments:
Post a Comment