The New York Times, along with other papers, recently blew the cover of several NSA surveillance programs. Whether or not the programs actually were aiding the War on Terrorism, the papers felt that revealing these operations, even while they were underway, was more important to the national debate on privacy than to any issues of national security.
Predictably, the President responded:
"Every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security. And the question remains, whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion? For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage. The details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike. Had we been engaged in open warfare the press undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare they recognized only the tasks of journalism and not the tasks of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tasks should not now be adopted? Every newspaper now asks itself with respect to every story: is it news? All I suggest is you add the question: is it in the interest of national security?"
Ah, but which president? If you guessed Bush, wrong. If you guessed JFK, right you are. (Who would have known that the hero of the Left was such a fascist?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment