Criminal Complicity

One aspect of secret—and illegal—domestic spying program which I haven’t yet mentioned is that the NY Times, who broke the story, had known about the program for over a year, but held off its publication of the administration’s criminality at the request of the White House.

In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

[…]

In a statement yesterday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller … wrote that when the Times became aware that the NSA was conducting domestic wiretaps without warrants, "the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."

I admit, I’m no criminal mastermind, but I fail to see how the public being made aware that the government is evading official oversight of its spying would alert terrorists that they may be spied on. Don’t most people up to no good try to hide their schemes, specifically because they assume (and rightfully so) that the government has a pretty easy time securing warrants for eavesdropping under FISA? The government’s assertions are absurd, and hardly justification for the Times’ decision to withhold this damning information from the public. The Times is blowing as much smoke up our asses as the dirtbag Bushies who ran the scam in the first place.

Seriously, between the Judith Miller debacle and this bit of heinous criminal complicity, stick a fork in the Gray Lady. She’s one done turkey.

And hopefully, so is the Bush administration, at long last. This is, as said Hilzoy, “something that no American should tolerate. We claim to have a government of laws, not of men. That claim means nothing if we are not prepared to act when a President (or anyone else) places himself above the law. If the New York Times report is true, then Bush should be impeached.” Amen to that. Tom Watson deems it the Bush embolism, and I wish with all due gravity that he is right when he suggests it will

drain the Administration of its last twitches of legitimacy… Bush is now grievously wounded, and Congress - Republican or not - will not rescue him this time. The bleeding will grow, the stain will spread, and no one in the Administration (including the soon-to-be-indicted Karl Rove) will be able to close the artery. And that is terrible, because what is hemorraghing away in the dark night of this criminal administration is precious American freedom.

Yeah, I think Bush is an odious turd with some of the most appalling policy prescriptions ever to come down the pike, but this is beyond partisan bickering. An administration that places itself above the law, and convinces the media into keeping their sinister machinations locked in the safety of murkiness, is precisely why we have the system of checks and balances we do. Subverting them is to subvert the very foundations of America, and that, quite frankly, scares me more than any terrorist threat used to justify such repugnant actions.