"It is not our place to pass judgment on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood."

What is it the place of the New York Times to pass judgment on? Is there anything at all that falls in that category? If so, why not this?

"Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions."

If the monitoring program had such a solid legal grounding, why did they feel compelled to bypass the warrant process? Does anyone in the government remember "checks and balances", or is that now considered "quaint" by the current administration?

Capitol Hill Blue, caveats aside, actually had this story nailed back in June 7th, 2004...

Capitol Hill Blue: Spying on Americans: Pardon us while we gloat

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7830.shtml

Will Bunch claims that the buzz around this was happening mid-2004. I would be quite shocked if the NY Times only had this story ready after last years election. It is clear they are being deliberately cagey about the timing because of the implications it has on how Bush was successfully re-elected with the help of a complicit media.

I am nearly speechless in the face of Bill Keller's statement that the Times delayed this story for over a year on the strength of White House assurances that "a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." Oh, where to start? If this assurance had ANY credibility, why was the program concealed from the Legislature, the Judiciary and the public?

And since WHEN does the President have the authority to simply ignore a statute duly legislated by Congress? Such domestic surveillance is flatly prohibited by Federal statute, and the ONLY defense is a competent judicial order duly granted upon a showing. Even with the agreement of everyone involved, where does Bill Keller believe that Bush gains such authority to ignore any inconvenient statute he pleases; in SECRET? What is the problem with these people at the Times?? Have they all lost sight of their purpose in this country?? I am outraged.

Apparently nobody in authority at the Times understands that this "secret authorization" to violate the law is, to start with, clearly an impeachable offense. It is ILLEGAL and Bush admits his guilt openly and in writing. Recall the Clinton impeachment for alleged perjury in a civil case, denied by Clinton. Those who cite the Yoo Doctrine (which allegedly grants the President unlimited executive, judicial and legislative authority in wartime) are also bereft of critical thinking skills; failing to appreciate the simple fact that we are not in a state of War as defined by the Constitution, which requires a Declaration of War by Congress (not since 1941).

I pray for the Times to find their soul again before it is too late for them and for our Democracy.

I'd be very ineterested to know just what sort of dangerous individuals this unwarranted surveilance was targeted against. Quaker peace activists perhaps? Democratic party campaign offices maybe? Any of the other highly 'dangerous' pacifists, democrats and justice advocates that the Bush junta dislikes?

Secret powers will *always* be abused, as history and human nature have shown since time immemorial. Why do Americans persist in thinking that somehow they're different to the rest of humanity, and don't need to follow the rules all the rest of us have found to be prudent.

Democracy is seriously compromised wherever this sort of executive abuse is allowed. When the third estate refuses to even report on the abuse, well you've gotta ask whether there's a democracy to defend at all. Or is it all just a big light and mirror show disguising the ugly truth that the US is in fact already a religious dictatorship, dedicated to the worship of Mammon. You can reclaim your government, but not if you don't recognise the nature of the enemy.

Neither the usually acute Tim Grieve or Bill Keller mentioned a previous case in which the Times in 1961 at Kennedy's request refrained from publishing an article on preparations for what became the Bay of Pigs invasion. Had it done so, there would have been public debate about US policy toward Castro, the debacle might have been avoided, and perhaps US relations with Cuba might have taken a different course. Those who argue that empire and democracy are incompatible certainly have not been refuted by yet another instance of the way in which editors and publishers and journalists in critical cases capitulate to the claims of government that "national security" (an infinitely expanding category) is at stake. Perhaps if Sulzberger, Keller and their colleagues spent some time reading the arguments of the opposition to empire---quite well represented in our universities

and represented in the Congress by some interesting voices---

they might take a different view of their duties to the public. If the very notion seems far fetched, it is----but that raises interesting questions about the processes of thought control in the nation which, absurdly, purports to instruct others in democracy.

How exactly would publishing the fact that the government is breaking the law by failing to get a warrant first, tip of suspected terrorists? Certainly all would be terrorists must assume that they are under surveillance because they have absolutely no way of knowing if a warrant has been issued to watch them or not. Knowing that the government broke the law and didn't bother to get a warrant first gives them no additional information to know when they are being watched or not.

The real question is under what circumstances would a judge decline to grant. The most reasonable answer is when the government wants to eavesdrop on someone that is not a threat to the security our country. Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace for ordering unwarranted wiretapping. Now we have Bush openly admitting he did the same and barely a fuss is heard. And finely, can any one now seriously see the New York Times as anything but another enabler of the administration’s war on America.