Questioning the Authorities

A lot of people are saying that the New York Times essentially committed treason by writing about a secret government program to monitor financial transactions. Dan Froomkin helps put the hysteria in perspective:

It's a monstrous charge for the White House to suggest that the press is essentially aiding and abetting the enemy. But where's the evidence?

The White House first began leveling this kind of accusation immediately after a New York Times story revealed a massive, secret domestic spying program conducted without congressional or judicial oversight. See, for instance, Bush's December 17, 2005 radio address, in which he said the disclosure put "our citizens at risk."

But not once has the White House definitively answered this question: How are any of these disclosures actually impairing the pursuit of terrorists?

Terrorists already knew the government was trying to track them down through their finances, their phone calls and their e-mails. Within days of the Sept. 11 attacks, for instance, Bush publicly declared open season on terrorist financing.

As far as I can tell, all these disclosures do is alert the American public to the fact that all this stuff is going on without the requisite oversight, checks and balances.

How does it possibly matter to a terrorist whether the government got a court order or not? Or whether Congress was able to exercise any oversight? The White House won't say. In fact, it can't say.

By contrast, it does matter to us.

This is exactly right. If the only thing you care about is greater safety from terrorism, then, by all means, give the government absolute, unchecked power to wage the "war on terror" using any and all means it deems necessary, and make it a crime say anything about what the government is doing. If, on the other hand, you care about such things as freedom, democracy, checks and balances, equal rights, civil liberties, privacy, etc. — you know, the things that we are fighting the terrorists to preserve — then you might find that kind of totalitarianism contrary to the principles you hold dear.

Sadly, some people will let their fear get the better of them and opt for the police state. But at least those folks should muster the courage to focus the debate on the real issue — not whether the NYT is a bad actor, but whether the Bill of Rights is a good thing to have.