It came as very little surprise yesterday when the [tag]New York Times[/tag] won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on Bush’s warrantless-search program.
[tag]James Risen[/tag] and [tag]Eric Lichtblau[/tag] of the New York Times won the national reporting prize for their articles on the administration’s domestic [tag]surveillance[/tag] program, and the Times drew criticism from the left for holding the report for a year. Bush met with Executive Editor Bill Keller and Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to argue against publication.
“The paper did a courageous thing in printing the story,” Lichtblau said, adding that the revelation itself “drowned out the early questions about what the paper did or didn’t do.” He added: “This was by far the toughest story I’ve ever worked on. It involved sources who obviously put themselves in some jeopardy just by talking about the very existence of the program.”
The surprise, however, came by way of the reaction from [tag]Bush[/tag]’s political allies.
That award has set off a new slew of bitter commentary from Bush supporters, including [Bill] [tag]Bennett[/tag], proclaiming that [tag]Risen[/tag] and [tag]Lichtblau[/tag] belong in [tag]prison[/tag]. On his radio show this morning, the great free press crusader Bennett said: “I think what they did is worthy of jail.”
Powerline, as always, helpfully expounds on this definitively American principle of throwing reporters in jail who publish stories which damage the political interests of the Commander-in-Chief during a Time of War. In an item entitled “Pulitzer Prize for Treason,” Scott “Big Trunk” Johnson says that Risen and Lichtblau won the Pulitzer “for their treasonous contribution to the undermining of the highly classified National Security Agency surveillance program of al Qaeda-related terrorists,” which — according to Johnson, “is a particularly serious crime insofar as it lends assistance to the enemy” — all together, now — “in a time of war.”
Look, I realize that the story is a dreadful embarrassment for the Bush [tag]White House[/tag]. The president was caught circumventing the law and arguing that he can do literally anything under the guise of national security. The NYT’s reporting on this exposed an extra-constitutional scheme that involved spying on Americans without oversight, a [tag]warrant[/tag], or any checks and balances.
But to call these reports treason isn’t just wrong; it’s silly.
Glenn Greenwald helpfully included an audio clip from Bennett’s radio show. The self-proclaimed virtue czar said Risen and Lichtblau:
took classified information, secret information, published it in their newspapers, against the wishes of the president, against the request of the president and others, that they not release it – they not only released it, they publicized it — they put it on the front page, and it damaged us, it hurt us.
How do we know it damaged us? Well, it revealed the existence of the surveillance program — so people are going to stop making calls — since they are now aware of this — they’re going to adjust their behavior….
Funny, I was under the impression that we’d already had this debate back in January — and Bush’s allies lost.
Biden: General, how has this revelation damaged the program? I’m almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn’t think we were intercepting their phone calls. I mean, I’m a little confused. How did it damage this?
Gonzales: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I’m just the lawyer. And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true — you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.
But if they’re not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.
Bennett’s argument boils down to his belief that the New York Times shouldn’t run an article if the president asks the paper not to, and if journalists with a scoop disagree, they should be incarcerated. Amazing.