---

June 27, 2006

Special Report Roundtable - June 27

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAT ROBERTS (R), SENATE INTELLIGENCE CMTE CHMN: If another attack occurs because of this information going out and giving the terrorists at least a leg up in regards to what they know and not know in changing their method of operation, or as General Hayden now says, all we're doing is stopping stupid terrorists. If that attack comes, the people who have written these stories and people who made their decisions should look in the mirror.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: That it's chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee today seething still over that publication last week in the "New York times" of leaked information regarding a government program --secret program to surveil through, with the cooperation of part of an international banking system, possible terrorist financial transactions.

Some observations on this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard"; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of "Roll Call"; and Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio, FOX News contributors all.

Before we start, I want to take note of the fact that constitutional amendment which would empower Congress to ban, if it choose, the desecration of the American flag failed by a single vote, getting only 66, needing 67 votes in the U.S. Senate. We will discuss all of that in the next segment, but first this. The editor of the "Los Angeles Times" published an explanation of sorts today for his decision also to publish this information. Make no mistake about it, the "New York times" was the organization that got it first, but the "L.A. Times came along and had it as well.

"In the end," he writes, "we felt that the legitimate public interest in this program outweighed the political cost to counterterrorism efforts" continuing, "we have an obligation to cover the government, with its tremendous power and to offer information about its activities so citizens can make their own decisions. That's the role of the press in our democracy."

An explanation strikingly similar to that which was offered by Bill Keller, the editor of the "New York Times" -- the executive editor of the "New York Times" about its decision. And it comes down, it seems, to a rather general notion of public interest in this story. Now, by public interest does he mean there's a compelling public interest served by this or does he mean simply the public is interested in this sort of thing? What -- I'm not -- I wish I could -- I keep expecting that some powerful case is to be made here and what hear is generalities and stuff about free press and the democracy.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: Go ahead.

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: He also said there is an intense and ongoing public debate about whether surveillance programs like these pose as serious threats to civil liberties, suggesting.

HUME: Like this one?

LIASSON: Well, that's what he said.

HUME: Well where's the intense public debate about that one going on?

LIASSON: Well, the interesting thing is that this particular program has not caused much an intense public debate although previous programs like the NSA warrantless wiretapping did cause a debate. Clearly the "L.A. Times" saw this bank surveillance as similar to that program.

MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL": Look, I think that a kind of roar shark test of where the media is coming from was revealed in the "Washington Post" story. The "Washington Post" got the story late. It had to be a catch-up Friday morning, so it basically -- on the basis of little information it wrote what it thought. What -- you know, what it said is that this all fits into a pattern that this administration has built up unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorist investigators.

Now, what the assumption on the part of these media outlets is that this administration is hoarding information, invading your privacy, gathering information which may not be of any use to anybody and in a raw execution of executive power. And the public interest is served by us, the media, in thwarting this and revealing it to one and all. And basically.

HUME: That's a better argument than either the -- that statement or that story is a better argument than either the "Times" or the "Los Angeles Times."

KONDRACKE: In -- when the editors had to write their editorials or op-ed pieces or their explanations, they were more measured, but I think that's where it's basically coming from. That they think that this administration is fundamentally more dangerous to American liberty than Osama bin Laden is.

FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": But that's not what they said.

KONDRACKE: I know.

BARNES: Either "L.A. Times" editor or Bill Keller -- Bill Keller is the of the "New York Times" or Dean Baquet, if that's the way you pronounce his last name, he's the editor of "Los Angeles Times" he said, and what -- and what the "L.A. Times" editor was saying is basically, we know better. We know better than your elected officials who you've elected to represent you when we -- in the end we felt that the legitimate public interest, in other words, they know better. Dean Baquet knows better, Bill Keller knows better -- just a sec Brit -- in this program, and it outweighed the potential cost to counterterrorism efforts. Well, they know better how this is going to affect the counterterrorism efforts. They know better than George Bush, the intelligence agency, the elected officials of government. It's the idea that they know better and the heck with you and your elected officials.

HUME: Well, there have obviously been times in our nation's history when it was a very valuable thing for the press to expose the secrets of government. And the same argument could have been made against that, that these people were saying they know better.

BARNES: They were.

HUME: And sometimes they have.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: The question I have here is whether there's any compelling case to be made in the instance of this particular program that there's any abuse or real threat to the privacy of Americans?

BARNES: There is no case like that. The "L.A. Times" editor, the best he can do, and it reflects what Mort is saying, is that government has tremendous power and they obviously suspect that there's something going on here, but they haven't found anything.

HUME: Do you think the editors of these newspapers believe that we're in a real war?

BARNES: No. They don't think it's a serious war at all.

LIASSON: Yes, I do. I do think that they understand there is a war against terrorism. And in this war, which is a new and different kind of war, it's going on for a very long time, there's all sorts of new and different tools being used by the government, and there's probably more secrecy around them, and there's going to -- the country has to find a balance between how much the country needs to know about what the government is doing to fight terrorists and how much it should just take the administration's word for it that certain things should remain secret.

KONDRACKE: I don't think they think this is a serious war. I think they think it's an ongoing time of trouble and that, as Mara says, we have to balance off things. In a real war, when you have a fighting war, you do keep secrets and, you know, they say that when lives are threatening -- Baquet said when lives are threatened, we would not publish. He doesn't credit the idea that lives may be lost because either we don't get cooperation from other countries in sharing intelligence or that we will actually tip-off the terrorists about how we're gathering information.

HUME: And do you think that there ought to be a prosecution of the "New York Times?" Mara, I take it that you do not.

LIASSON: Well, I think that if you prosecute the "New York Times," I guess, you'd have to prosecute the "L.A. Times" and "Wall Street Journal" and you'd have to prosecute.

HUME: So the answer is you think probably not.

LIASSON: Probably not.

KONDRACKE: I think not the "New York Times," but I'd go after the leaker, if I could find him.

BARNES: Yeah sure, you'd have to go after him and I -- but we do need to have our laws in this case looked at again to be made relevant, and proper and appropriate now.

HUME: Got to go, but when we come back, the Senate debate about protecting the flag from desecration. It has failed. We'll talk about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: Our country was viciously attacked on September 11, 2001, and America responded. We didn't need a constitutional amendment to teach Americans how to love their country.

JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: The American flag is a monument, a symbol of our freedom, our country, and our way of life. Why in the world would we refuse to protect it against desecration?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, refused the Senate did by the margin of a single vote. It failed a constitutional amendment authorizing the Congress to ban, if it chooses, there it is, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

It would overturn a Supreme Court decision that said such desecration was a form of constitutionally protected speech and it failed by a single vote. Just for the record, it's worth noting that a bunch of democrats voted in favor of it, that's how they got 66, among them, Diane Feinstein, Evan Bayh, Harry Reid, the floor leader, Jay Rockefeller, but three republicans voted no, Mitch McConnell, who had been leading the charge against it, Chafee of Rhode Island, no big surprise there, and Bennett of Utah. So there you have it. What is the political consequence of this measure failing by so narrow a vote, does it have any legs beyond this event or is this over with?

BARNES: Yeah, they'll try again. I mean, they will try again. When you get that close, I think it's incumbent upon you if you have a serious movement, and I think this is a serious cause, for them to try again.

HUME: Serious cause -- Mort.

BARNES: No, wait a minute, let me just add one more thing, you know to have senator Feingold up there, whose campaign finance bill suppressed political speech, to be against this amendment which would bar people from dissenting, it's the idea it's political speech when they're burning a flag, to have him who would just impose this on campaigns in America, shutting down political speech leading up to campaigns.

LIASSON: Well, he didn't just impose it, this -- Congress passed it and the president signed it, but...

BARNES: .spokesman for the other side now. I mean, what a hypocrite.

LIASSON: But, you know, he -- in terms of the Congress refusing to protect the flag. Many members who are not for a constitutional amendment are for laws to protect the flag, this...

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: But in order for any law to pass muster, Mara, do you think they have to have a constitutional amendment to make it, this is a Supreme Court decision?

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: Yeah, there are people who think they've crafted a lot to get around it, but what I think is interesting is that you've got the majority -- the minority leader, the democratic leader voting yes, and the No. 2 republican, Mitch McConnell voting no. I mean that tells you this is not a simple.

(CROSSTALK)

KONDRACKE: This is important to a lot of veterans' group and people in Congress are anxious to be seen well or be judged well by veterans. Now, look, I just think on the merits that, one, flag desecration is a very rare thing, and to make it illegal would sort of heighten the fun on the part of the desecrators in order to make it more edgy for them to do it. I see it's totally unnecessary. Furthermore, the flag is a symbol, it's not the country, it's not the freedom that Senator Cornyn referred to. I mean, if you burn a crucifix, you're not killing Jesus Christ, you know, you're burning an object, and I think it's the same way with the flag.

BARNES: I'm really -- I didn't know Mort knew so much about the mind of flag desecrators, here he's entered into it, he knows what motivates them and doesn't -- Mort, you know, when you pledge allegiance, you pledge allegiance to the flag, that's not nothing. When you sing "The Star- Spangled Banner," what is that song about? It's about the flag.

(CROSSTALK)

OK, but I mean this stands alone. It's not some cheap trinket expressing patriotism, this is the flag.

KONDRACKE: The flag is a symbol, it is not the reality of the freedom or constitution of the United States.

HUME: All right, so is this over, Mara?

LIASSON: I don't think this is over. This is supposed to be an issue that helps rally the conservative base in what's going to be a pretty tight election.

HUME: Will it?

LIASSON: Will this vote? I don't think it will.

KONDRACKE: I don't think so.

BARNES: I think it's an important vote, won't rally anybody.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006