Informed Speculation

There’s a real chance that the biggest casualty of the various Bush administration scandals circulating through his second term will be the press, and for those of us on the right, that prospect manages the difficult trick of being welcome and troubling at once.

A welcome prospect because, next to Hollywood’s elite and senators, journalists can be the most pompous of all professionals, hiding behind their principles when it suits them, and discarding them quickly when it does not. Troubling, because a vigorous free press is not only a good thing, it is absolutely essential to a well-functioning democracy.

These are the thoughts on my mind as we see the inquiry into who leaked the NSA program to the NY Times move forward:

Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country’s law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials.

The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said. People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges.

The inquiry is progressing as a debate about the eavesdropping rages in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush has condemned the leak as a “shameful act.” Others, like Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, have expressed the hope that reporters would be summoned before a grand jury and asked to reveal the identities of those who provided them classified information.

Mr. Goss, speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Feb. 2, said: “It is my aim, and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people this country deserve nothing less.”

The case is viewed as potentially far reaching because it places on a collision course constitutional principles that each side regards as paramount. For the government, the investigation represents an effort to punish those responsible for a serious security breach and enforce legal sanctions against leaks of classified information at a time of heightened terrorist threats. For news organizations, the inquiry threatens the confidentiality of sources and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference.

Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said that no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and he defended the paper’s reporting.

“Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration’s contention that disclosing the program would damage the country’s counterterrorism efforts,” Mr. Keller said. “We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security. What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate about the proper balance between security and liberty — a debate that many government officials of both parties, and in all three branches of government, seem to regard as in the national interest.”

Civil liberties groups and Democratic lawmakers as well as some Republicans have called for an inquiry into the eavesdropping program as an improper and possibly illegal intrusion on the privacy rights of innocent Americans. These critics have noted that the program appears to have circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for eavesdropping on American citizens. Former Vice President Al Gore has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the government’s use of the program, and at least one Democrat, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, has said the eavesdropping effort might amount to an impeachable offense.

At the same time, conservatives have attacked the disclosure of classified information as a illegal act, demanding a vigorous investigative effort to find and prosecute whoever disclosed classified information. An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper might be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act and said, “What The New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism.”

The Times own coverage of this is a perfect example of the contradictions. The bias just screams off the page: “conservatives have attacked the disclosure of classified information as a[sic] illegal act”? No, that is a fact, not an opinion of conservatives. Isn’t that the central allegation of the anti-Bush foes regarding Joe Wilson, that national security was harmed by the disclosure of classified information, in that case the identity of a CIA asset?

You can’t have it both ways, and the Times, as the most visible example of a demonstrably liberal major media outlet, has been all over the place on this and other issues. If the disclosure of national secrets harms Bush, it is an absolutely unblemished example of heroism; if the disclosure boosts the administration, it is an example of an imperial presidency that must surely end in impeachment.

Here’s the best definition of a principled organization: one that takes a consistent stand on core values, even when that stand is harmful to its own immediate interests. Does anyone see a consistent principle of the NY Times even remotely in view regarding these issues? If so, can you send me a map?

UPDATE 4:59 p.m.: Glenn Greenwald thinks that Bush is silencing his critics with prison threats – if so, it’s not working (I mean, come on, his approval rating is in the 40s – he better get cracking!)….