THE TIMES EXPLAINS – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  The New York Times has explained its decision to publish the WikiLeaks leaked documents exposing American state secrets.  It is a pathetic, lame, and, of course, pompous explanation of what amounts to a serious breach of the law:

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 online on Sunday. 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 arrogance is breathtaking.  The documents break the confidentiality required by governments.  It is not up to The Times to decide, for itself, what is damaging and what is not.

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.

That's some loophole.  Is it finally closed, or are they appointing a committee in Washington?

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.

Where, precisely, is The Times's expertise in this matter?  National secrets of the United States are the property of the American people, and are entrusted to elected officials and their appointees.

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.

They should not have cooperated at all.

My friend at PowerLine, Scott Johnson, points out the hypocrisy of The Times.  Scott notes:

The New York Times is participating in the dissemination of the stolen State Department cables that have been made available to it in one way or another via WikiLeaks. My friend Steve Hayward recalls that only last year the New York Times ostentatiously declined to publish or post any of the Climategate e-mails because they had been illegally obtained. Surely readers will recall Times reporter Andrew Revkin's inspiring statement of principle: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."

The Times appears to have a flexibile view of the word "illegal."

Shame.

November 29, 2010