One of the core goals of WikiLeaks is the exposure of what Assange calls the “Invisible Government,” the collection of career state department, intelligence and defense officials who represent a transnational state apparatus that operates across different elected (and unelected) governments. This apparatus is necessarily not merely unelected, but actually contemptuous about democratic processes. Marcy has remarked on this as have other commentators.

Listening to Floyd Abrams, a lawyer who frequently has represented the NYT (Pentagon Papers, Judy Miller) at this weeks Personal Democracy Forum Wikileaks symposium, it became clear how pervasive this attitude is. He said, quite clearly, that the courts will not be sympathetic to first amendment assertions by WikiLeaks if the government said that what they were doing is bad for the US.
The same attitude pervades Bill Keller’s piece in this week’s NYT magazine, which promotes a Times ebook on the topic.
Oh, and in a bit of irony, Keller praises the Times courage in running the NSA spying story–after the 2004 election, and without mentioning that James Risen was going to scoop the paper with his forthcoming book, State of War:

The tension between a newspaper’s obligation to inform and the government’s responsibility to protect is hardly new. At least until this year, nothing The Times did on my watch caused nearly so much agitation as two articles we published about tactics employed by the Bush administration after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The first, which was published in 2005 and won a Pulitzer Prize, revealed that the National Security Agency was eavesdropping on domestic phone conversations and e-mail without the legal courtesy of a warrant. The other,published in 2006, described a vast Treasury Departmentprogram to screen international banking records.

I have vivid memories of sitting in the Oval Office as President George W. Bush tried to persuade me and the paper’s publisher to withhold the eavesdropping story, saying that if we published it, we should share the blame for the next terrorist attack. We were unconvinced by his argument and published the story, and the reaction from the government — and conservative commentators in particular — was vociferous.

The story, of course,had been submitted to Times’ editors in October of 2004.








Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: