Home > Bush Attempted to Talk New York Times Out of Running Illegal Spying Story

Bush Attempted to Talk New York Times Out of Running Illegal Spying Story

by Open-Publishing - Tuesday 20 December 2005
9 comments

Democracy Attack-Terrorism Governments USA

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate-he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda-but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists-in fact, all American Muslims, period-have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story-which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year-because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

Micah Walter / Reuters (left); Alex Wong / Getty Images (right)
Called to the Oval Office: Sulzberger (left) and Keller
What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow-as the president seemed to claim in his press conference-or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason-and less out of genuine concern about national security-that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek

Forum posts

  • Funny thing, the New York Times did kill a story about the bush bulge when it could have made a difference...

    The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election—because it could have changed the election

    • A pre-election NYT story may not have made a difference in the 2004 election. A rigged election would still have occurred.

      The Dems still would not have protested, the MSM still would not have publicized the obvious discrepencies, and we would still be on the verge of a fascist state.

      Only repairing the very fraudulent voting system might possibly get us out of this mess.

    • Yeah, funny thing the NYT waited until now take break this story. It makes you think.. The newspaper could be viewed no different than Bushie: witholding sensitive information that matters
      Roland E. Wakker
      Thessaloniki, Greece

  • One of the most interesting parts of this flap is who allowed this super secret activity to be revealed to the public. That is the real question as it does not matter WHEN it occurred the fact that it did is a direct threat to our security. What else will this same source do if they are not stopped? Lets ask the most important question first and that is to point out the party involved no matter if it Democrat or Republican. They are a danger to every attempt to protect this country.

    I consider the press to be just as dangerous when they reveal super secret information with any regard for life or limb just to sell papers. It is no wonder the New York Times is losing subscribers left and right. They appear to be non American and on the side of those who would destroy this nation.

    The people was are war with are not fighting over land or territory but over ideology. That has no boundaries or central location. This is clearly a war against all form of government, religious orders or private personal activity. Make no mistake here the bases of radical Sunni Islam is to destroy all forms that do not agree with their point of view. Would you like this bunch of crazies to have a Nuke? That where all this is heading if we do not use every means available to us to stop them. I know this that in combat you don’t have time to discuss moral principles when its you or them. That is the issue.

    The War on the ground is only part of the fight. What Bush did was and will always be clearly military. There are two rule or warfare. One Split the enemies forces, never let him mass forces in your direction. Secondly destroy as quickly as possible all lines of supple and destroy his supple bases. When we took out Afghanistan it was a country that was land locked which Ben Laden assumed we could not destroy when we did. Incidentally IF Ben Laden is still living he is in Chechnya in the USSR because all of personal body guards were from there!! The attack on Iraq was a forgone conclusion from a military point of view in that is immediately divided the enemy forces and surrounded Iran. The big PLUS was the stock pile of weapons and ammo found there which indicated to me that this was the supple dump for Al Qaeda. Iran certainly did not want these caught in their land nor did Saudi Arabia soooo Saddam became the care taker of the supplies used in war. Not any more.

    We are dealing with people that have no concern for anyone for under Islam you who are Islamic will be considered a nonperson!

    Lets Get back to the real issue and that who betray this nation by releasing super secret information and the press that was so dishonest as to make it public. Who side is the New York Time on anyway?

    • I think you’re in the wrong place. The real question is, who was brave enough to stand up to the Bush administration and tell the truth. We already know who has betrayed the nation (hint: he sits in the Oval Office). If you think otherwise, then I must write you off as a facist fellow-traveller. But then, you have all the symptoms already...

  • Has the New York Post bothered to check other administrations regarding the same activities ????
    I bet not.....

    • Well, actually yes; the press has checked with other prior administrations and parts of government for release of stories and release of "fake stories".

      There are many, many instances where and when this happenned dating abck to the Spanish/American war and before — Read about "col" McCormick and the Chicago Tribune. The Haymarket Riots in Chicago; the war "dispatches" of WW I and WW II; the Hearst Press "dispatches"; labor union activity in Detroit of the 1930’s; The gulf of Tonkin; Iran-Contra; Starvation and other events occurring during the depressions of the 1890 and 1930, the stories during the dispatch of the U.S. Army to suppress labor in Texas, Michigan, New York, and so on.

      Albeit, much of this is not online and cannot easily be retrieved as yet. And it takes a student in history with vast time and effort and a large library like the one at The University of Chicago or Yale to bring into focus what is happenning now.

      The fact that these things are not widely known shows how effective the government and the press have been in keeping the masses ignorant throughout the many generations.

      What is happenning is not new... Just that in this generation a few (like before) become aware of such things for a short period of time before it is swept away or otherwise effectively hidden.

      And like all instances before, this too will fade from memory.

    • Not only is the "author" of this article a complete boob who shamelessly massacres the language, he also shows himself to be entirely gullible to the message of the bogus war on terror. The lie that the president is somehow protecting us by trampling over the laws and the constitution seems to have been completely swallowed by this twit of a writer.

      If the real crime was leaking the information on the "super secret" covert operation of gathering inteeligence by the NSA, why isn’t the president demanding an investigation into finding out and prosecuting the leaker and the NY Times reporters and editors involved? It’s obvious that the president has another agenda in mind - that being to draw congress into a constitutional crisis and force them to investigate and find whether he, the president, broke the law and should face impeachment. Naturally, Cheney will not be involved and will ascend to the presidency if Bush is impeached or forced to resign.

      It may be what this administration or the neocon handlers intended all along. President Cheney. Think about that.

      The clear and present danger is in this administration and Congress needs to find the will and the ways to keep them in check for at least another year. If the democrats can prevail in the ’06 elections, then impeachment proceedings can be entertained against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, cleaning the entire house of the real enemies of democracy.

    • It is unfortunate indeed that the current administation continues to promulgate "fear & smear" as it has done dating back to the malignment of Senator John McCain right up to the swift boat story of Senator John Kerry or the Abu Gharib fiasco where the photograph clearly showed CIA operatives at work yet the foot soldiers are the ones to blame. It is truly sad when government is never held to account be it city, state, or federal anymore and there is no honor with those charged with representing US as fudiciaries yet sell out to either K street (lobbying firms) or Wall street.
      It is uncanny to me that since 911 that NOT one person has been fired instead all we ever hear is reform or an investigation is under way which is solely intended to manipulate the news cycle until it
      is no longer in the news. It sad that goverment officials now have no honor or stand for "a govermnent by the people, for the people and of the people. Good Day.