New York Times Bureau Chief Defends NSA Wire-tapping Story

Last night, I heard the Washington D. C. Bureau Chief for the New York Times Philip Taubman speak and defend his newspaper's decision to print so-called "state secrets" twice in the last 10 months.
To be honest, I was very much looking forward to the presentation and the question and answer session afterward as I have had some doubts about the decisions, as well as the decision by the Washington Post to publish a story about secret CIA prisons abroad.
For the record, I support a free press. I am a member of the press and believe that an informed electorate is the only way to keep government from falling into tyranny. But, I am also an American. I still get upset when I talk about September 11 and I believe Toby Keith got it more right than some of the politicians. We need to kick the living daylights out of those responsible and set an example. Make certain no one ever again thinks they can get away with attacking Americans on American soil.
So, when I hear my President say that the New York Times article may have endangered my country, I want to know why my fellow Americans decided to print the story anyway. For the record, like Taubman, I want to reiterate that George Bush is not my President because I am a Republican or because I voted for him. I choose not to tell people how I voted and I'm a registered Democrat.
He is my President because the majority of the electoral college voted for him and that's the way my Constitution works. If accept the protections and freedoms of the Constitution, I either have to accept its limitations and machinations or work to change them. I cannot simply pick and choose what to agree with.
Anyway, the President and his advisers have asserted that certain things in the media have the potential to damage the war on terror, so I wanted to hear the newspaper's side of things. I am so glad I did.
Now, I know it all comes down to a matter of trust. If you trust the President more than you trust the New York Times, you believe they were wrong. If you believe the New York Times more than you believe the President, you wonder why they held the National Security Administration's wire-tapping story for 13 months before they printed it. And, if you are a reasonable, thinking person, you might decide the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Taubman used the podium Monday night to recount his side of the story. Two reporters brought him the wire-tapping story in the fall of 2004. The editorial board decided it was not ready to print and sent the reporters back to get more information. As you can imagine, on a highly classified story, it was not a quick fix.
In the following year, the editorial board debated when the story was ready and when was appropriate to publish it. Taubman pointed out that he is a citizen first, editor second and was on Manhattan when the planes struck the World Trade Center. He did not want to compromise the safety of his family and friends.
At the same time, there was growing sentiment in Washington and in the country that the White House was overstepping the bounds of the law and the Constitution with its response to the terrorist attacks and the story certainly reflected an element of that concern. Being a believer in the free press, Taubman, and others at the Times, began to consider the possibility that a national discussion on the issue was in order. And, the only way to get that discussion was to publish the story.
In late November, 2005, the reporters began to get official comments on the story they were working on and that tipped off high-level government officials that the story was almost done. On December 5, 2005, editors from the New York Times including Taubman were invited to the White House to meet with the President about the story.
Most of that meeting was very off the record. Taubman acknowledges that the administration tried to convinced them not to print and gave them some convincing arguments as well as much more detail about the program than they had previously had. The President argued that the wire-tapping was the most effective weapon we had against terrorists and that it was authorized by the broad strokes of the September 14, 2001, joint resolution for the use of force against the terrorists.
The Times editorial board considered the arguments, weighed what they knew and the potential damage the story could do, and decided to publish it 11 days later. Immediately, it stirred a response unlike anything they had expected. Members of Congress both condemned and commended the story. The President used his weekly radio address to acknowledge the existence of the program and to condemn the press for writing about it. And, a national investigation into the leaks began.
But most importantly, it began a debate about the limits of presidential and administrative powers related to the war on terror that continues now, 10 months later. Taubman will stand behind his decision to print and says he would do it again.
On other issues, he says, there are stories he has killed or held indefinitely because he believes they could be a threat to national security. Having listened to the man, I believe him.
I supposed as a member of the press, I am predisposed to wanting to believe that rational reporters and editors act in the best interest of the country. Whether I would have made the same decision given the information the New York Times had, I cannot say. However, I can say that it appears both sides in this debate were working in their own way to protect my interests - the safety and security of the United States.
I applaud the New York Times for continuing the open and honest debate on how we best defend our borders and defend American beliefs as well.