Infinite Monkeys

the press can and should go through the government's trash and report about whatever it finds. The government should never feel confident that it can conduct ANY program in secret.

By this logic, it would be impossible to defend this country or fight any war. D-Day could never have happened. Sorry, I'm with the hyperventilators on this.

Yes, Robb, you're way off base here. That's the problem with taking extreme absolutist positions--if you take the ridiculous position that the government can't conduct any program in secret, then no one listens to you when you point out legetimate areas where secrecy and privacy violations are a concern.

Do you really have no limit, Robb? Should the New York Times publish detailed intructions on construction of atomic bombs? On the security protocols at nuclear plants? Should they warn mafioso when a warrant has been issued for wiretapping?

You can engage in cute sophistry about whether lack of on the record statements necessitate this or that conclusion, but it's so disconnected from the real world that it's ridiculous. Legitimate business knows that financial transactions are not private, but following the money to track terrorist activities may be the single most valuable method of stopping attacks. How can you possibly say ending such a program is in the best interest of anyone xcept terrorists?

I disagree with both your specific example and your general conclusion. First, there's a difference between a specific tactical action or piece of information (e.g. logistics of the Normandy invasion, the nuclear launch codes, the investigation of a particular individual) and a program or policy (e.g. using amphibious assault during a declared war, having nuclear warheads and missles, the SWIFT program itself.) Perhaps a better WWII-era analogy would be The Manhattan Project?

Other than being "conventional wisdom" (which should be a tip-off right there,) I'm not at all convinced that secret programs are essential or even particularly helpful to national defense. Care to defend that assertion?

David, as with James, you have given examples of specific pieces of information, not "programs." The newspapers should ABSOLUTELY be free to let people know that we have an atomic program, that we build bombs, that we have nuclear plants (and their locations), and that we tap phones (only with a warrant, right?) to capture criminals.

And, as I mentioned in my original post, this is not a discussion of the legitimacy of the program itself, it is a discussion of the role of the press in letting the public know that the program exists.

Again, I would ask you to make a principled defense of secret programs. How is our liberty protected when a government can conduct a program without public scrutiny? And why, if our government can keep any individual program a complete secret, should we have any confidence that they are not also conducting less legal/constitutional programs in the name of "national security?"

I don't buy the distinction between a "program" and specific information. A program of eavesdropping on enemy communications during WWII would be subject to disclosure by the NYT? And that's a good thing?

Sorry, you may distrust the government, but I distrust the press, and nobody elected them to protect us.

The press don't have guns. They don't have force, they only have information. I don't expect the press to protect our borders, I expect them to help protect our liberty by giving me as much information as possible about what the government is doing.

I have no hesitation in saying the press has a duty to reveal what programs the government is engaged in, even in wartime. Should programs that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians, such as the bombing campaigns in Dresden and Tokyo or the atom bomb detonations have escaped public scrutiny? Truman tried to tell the public that Hiroshima was a military installation, not a city teeming with civilians. Either he intentionally lied to the public, or he was himself deceived by his own advisors. In either case, a free press was necessary to set the record straight.

On the other side, wouldn't the German people have been better off with a free press to tell them that their government was slaughtering innocents? The Soviet people? The modern-day Chinese? Wouldn't a free press be an effective weapon against tyranny? How much more valuable is a free press in a nation that claims to prize liberty?

Sorry, Robb, but you don't get to reframe the debate as "all...secret programs are essential or even particularly helpful to national defense." No one is saying that. And you don't get to wiggle out on the D-Day analogy. Saying that the NYT shouldn't report that the allies are planning to attack Normandy in early June 1944, but that it's OK to report other programs makes no sense. If the NYT was reporting that the U.S. was developing amphibious assault vehicles, sending divers into the beaches to check defenses, cultivating French underground sources in the region, developing an airborne capability including gliders, creating a fake 1st Army with Patton in command of balsa wood tank mock-ups, and that the German ENIGMA code had been cracked, there would have been no D-Day. Yet all of those things should have been reported by the NYT according to you.

Also, no one is arguing against a free press. They're arguing in favor of discretion.

Robb, I really hope you take this opportunity to examine your core beliefs and how you are applying them here. I'm shocked that you think that the government should have no secret programs. Do you really think we would have been better off had the Axis powers known about the Manhattan project?

Robb-
Although I disagree with your views, I have to give you credit for being intellectually honest. While your belief that the government should have no secret programs is naive and bordering on the absurd, at least it's something that can be applied consistently across the board.

I doubt that the same could be said for the New York Times and others. For some reason I don't think that if, in 1996, there was a leak that the Clinton administration was trolling the financial records of people like Timothy McVeigh, they would have reacted the same way they are now with Bush.

I've been on a plane all day, and then at a Twins game, so I'm pretty much tapped. My responses to most of the comments will have to wait until tomorrow (probably - I may try to see the St. Paul minor league team play,) but I do want to quickly respond to Brad:

If by "no one" you mean, "no one on this weblog," then I believe you are correct. However, Hugh Hewitt is not arguing for discretion. He is arguing for grand juries, interrogation of the reporters, and prosecution of the leakers. Tony Blankley made similar calls when the NSA wiretap program was revealed. So reasonably high-profile pundits are, in my view, "arguing against a free press."

Robb,

As a starting point, I don't accept your premis that there are no government secrets and that "the press" is immune from attack because they've disclosed national security information. Free speech and freedom of the press have never been absolutes, and saying that the NYT should be investigated for what very well might be criminal behavior is not "arguing against a free press."

If the NYT publishes your social security number, bank account number, and ATM pin number, I would hope that you would have recourse and not be accused of "arguing against a free press."

And why in god's name are you in Minnesota? It's not even hockey season, so what's the point?

How 'bout them Twins?

James- Robb actually visits Minnesota in the summer like most sane people do (he learned his lesson about winter visits a few years ago). He's here for Thursday night trivia at Keegan's. What else?

I expect he's staying in a decent motel too, unlike the flophouses that you typically frequent.

I think, at this point, that it would be futile to try to continue a point-by-point debate, so I will just say this:

Fundamentally, we disagree about whether or not government can be trusted to do the right thing. I believe that we should NEVER trust government to do the right thing on its own, because government is just made up of people, and people will look out for their own interests by default. A free press is one of the most effective defenses against a state that would otherwise serve its own interests without fear of reprisal. The risks posed by a truly free press don't hold a candle to the risks posed by a government that can self-define what information is too sensitive for its citizens to know.

I'm staying at the Radisson in Roseville, which is pretty decent, and very close to my office. Of course, as The Elder pointed out, my business justification is merely a pretext to come watch a baseball game and visit the Fraters at Keegan's.

Nine ballparks down, twenty-one to go.

I really feel for the Twins - to have a win-loss record like that and still be eleven games out of first place is just criminal. Particularly when a team playing as bad as the Diamondbacks can be playing below .500 and still be within 3.5 games of the lead.

Heat, humity and mosquitos, and baseball indoors. Yep, that's Minnesota in the Summer.

The Twins? Baseball indoors? That's not baseball. Jeez, once the state thaws out, does everyone lose their minds?