NYT: A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents

[ProSense]

A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents

The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables Sunday online. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.

The Source of the Material

The documents — some 250,000 individual cables, the daily traffic between the State Department and more than 270 American diplomatic outposts around the world — were made available to The Times by a source who insisted on anonymity. They were originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to exposing official secrets, allegedly from a disenchanted, low-level Army intelligence analyst who exploited a security loophole. Beginning Sunday, WikiLeaks intends to publish this archive on its Web site in stages, with each batch of documents related to a particular country or topic. Except for the timing of publication, the material was provided without conditions. Each news organization decided independently what to write about the cables.

Reporting Classified Information

About 11,000 of the cables are marked “secret.” An additional 9,000 or so carry the label “noforn,” meaning the information is not to be shared with representatives of other countries, and 4,000 are marked “secret/noforn.” The rest are either marked with the less restrictive label “confidential” or are unclassified. Most were not intended for public view, at least in the near term.

The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.

more

[gateley]

1. Admirable, and nice to explain it to the readers, but the info will

be all over the internet anyway.

[tabatha]

2. end of article

"As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name. "

[ProSense]

3. We needed a little more of that

candor during the Bush administration.

Still, it's not like the NYT has a choice at this point. It's not going to be left out.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. The NY Times broke the warrentless wiretapping story

After Bush called the Publisher and Editor to the WH and threatened them in person.

[ProSense]

13. The NYT also produced Judith Miller. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

18. And they fired her, and her editor, and apologized

I don't know many high-level entities who fire people and apologize for harmful fuck-ups. Do you?

[impik]

14. Where was that concern during the Bush days?

Nowhere, of course.

[Posteritatis]

16. Most of this stuff was leaked near the end of his term anyway

You can't blame people for not releasing information in 2004 when they only got it in 2007 or 2008.

[Trajan]

4. A well considered set of responses ...

[Ozymanithrax]

5. When Cheney, Libby, and Rove did this it was an outrage...

a scandle, and they were called traitors.

When some love level angry guy gives it to Wikileaks he and Wikileaks heros.

This is called moral relativism.

In reality there is not a planck leangth of difference.

[eShirl]

6. "In reality there is not a planck leangth of difference."

What illegal war is this duping us into?

[Ozymanithrax]

8. It is taking calssified informatino and revcealing for political purposes.

You may agree with Wikileaks and the pissed off dude that violated the law and turned it over, but that dosn't make a planck length of difference. It is politial point of view. If Cheney et al vilated the law by revelaing information and should go to jail, the guy that gave it to Wikileaks and the entire Wikileaks organzation should find themselves in the same cell, arguing with cheny over who gets top bunk.

[struggle4progress]

7. We really don't know who's behind this: my guess would be the recent State Department stuff

was leaked by conservatives in the State Department who want to undermine Obama on foreign policy

[Ozymanithrax]

9. A lot this stuff, like the Iraq stuff.. goes back before Obama.

What we see here is another massive inteligence failure, as with 9/11 and the Iraq debacle. I'd bet there have been some big changes in the way the U.S. handles calssified information.

[gateley]

11. But I'm sure there's far more damning stuff pointing to Reagan and Bush

(and yes, Dems)than to Obama.

[gateley]

10. Good point! nt

[BlueMTexpat]

23. What on earth is a "planck leangth" ... and when did Cheney, Libby and

Rove ever release any classified documents that ever shed light on any of their arguably questionable actions?

As I recall, what they did was exactly the opposite - to the point of shredding subpoenaed documents.

If you are referring to the outing of Valerie Plame, their motives in that instance were not to render US foreign policy transparent - not at all - but rather to discredit the words of her husband, who showed their allegations about Iraq's obtaining yellowcake materials for nuclear purposes to be lies. And it was VERY personal. It not only resulted in the outing of an individual agent's cover, but also the endangerment of all with whom she worked under that cover. It was all for spite and to cover their own behinds. To date, only Libby has had to pay any price - and that is patently wrong.

With the release of these particular documents, however, efforts have been made to mitigate the adverse effects on individuals/informants named in the cables. Yes, the revelations are embarrassing, to say the least. But there is, IMO, an emphasis on overclassifying documentation as "secret" simply to keep information out of the public domain - that was particularly evident during the years from 2001-2008. Many of these documents would have been declassified in any event, in the normal course of things, after the passage of time.

Do I approve of this release? No, because I am bound to act in accordance with the law. But to call this event the same as the deliberately vindictive outing of an individual agent's cover that could directly have led to her losing her life and probably did lead to loss of life for some of her foreign contacts is totally off base.

This is a false equivalency on your part, not moral relativism.

[midnight]

24. Thank you for the explanation. I was trying to see the

cheney bush connection being similiar to wiki, but was stumped... But I go on further to support President Kennedy's idea about these secrets being kept from it's people... It's wrong....

[BlueMTexpat]

25. There are lots of events in diplomacy that are very sensitive,

but frankly, there are very few that cannot be shared with the public in due course, with proper redaction of source names and other identifiers. In fact, tons of documents, especially those with lower classifications, are generally declassified every year in response to FOIA requests, if they haven't already been declassified in accordance with the law.
It would be interesting to see the percentage of FOIA requests that were denied or thwarted generally during the BushCo era, if such statistics are kept anywhere.
IMO, in too many instances from beginning 2001-early 2009 - the era treated by the majority of these cables - where things were happening that should never have been happening at all, too many cables were classified as "Secret" and higher simply to ensure that the public would either never know or would learn about them so far after the fact that those involved would never be held to account.
That, to me, is one of the major differences between the comment that I disagreed with and the Wikileaks revelations. Cheney et al (Bush may not have been directly involved in the Plame leak, but Rove and Cheney certainly were) deliberately outed Plame in order to discredit Joe Wilson who contradicted what Cheney, Bolton & Co were telling everyone and to show Wilson that was the least of what they were able to do. It was also meant to serve as a chilling effect on others like Wilson, if they showed any tendency to speak up as Wilson had. They wanted to escape accountability. For the most part, their loathsome strategy worked.
The Wikileaks revelations - and Wikileaks doesn't only "pick on" the US, by any means - are meant to let the public in on what's been transpiring in their name so that the public can demand accountability. If it actually will.
Just MO, but if actions are so terrible that they should NEVER be subject to public scrutiny, then they shouldn't be happening at all. Everyone in government - elected, appointed or civil servant - should understand that. There should be no hiding behind the office or function. Ever.

[Radical Activist]

15. They never would have done this when Bush was President.

It's funny how everyone suddenly remembered how to be watch dogs after Obama took office. Worthless assholes.

[harun]

17. Totally agree. They were afraid of Bush, they aren't afraid of Obama.

[impik]

19. Why? Because he doesn't threat them? Because he actually believe in the freedom of press?

You'd rather him be like Bush?

[harun]

21. Striking fear in to the hearts of Republican's and the Press isn't being like B*sh

any more than being an air breather is being like B*sh. If you want to get the hard stuff done, it is the way to do it. Republican's don't respond to reason, logic or good will. They respond to fear.

[de novo]

20. I agree with you. Also absent during the bush years was any curiosity

from a Democratically held Congress. And the whole 'looking forward' bullshit.

I really wish wikileaks had been active during bush, but am still supportive of them now.

[Phx_Dem]

22. If they have to explain their decision, it obviously wasn't something

that the public "needed to know." Otherwise, no explanation would be necessary.

The media is nothing more than gossip mongers.