Here is the theory of governance advanced by the New York Times reporter James Risen, explaining (to Katie Couric on the Today Show) why the Times’ 12/16 NSA terrorist surveillance story had to be published:
RISEN: Well, I–I think that during a period from about 2000–from 9/11 through the beginning of the Gulf–the war in Iraq, I think what happened was you–we–the checks and balances that normally keep American foreign policy and national security policy towards the center kind of broke down. And you had more of a radicalization of American foreign policy in which the–the–the career professionals were not really given a chance to kind of forge a consensus within the administration. And so you had the–the–the principles (sic)–Rumsfeld, Cheney and Tenet and Rice and many others–who were meeting constantly, setting policy and really never allowed the people who understand–the experts who understand the region to have much of a say.
COURIC: You suggest there were a lot of power-grabbing going on.
Mr. RISEN: Yes.
Mr. Risen clearly subscribes to an idiosyncratic school of Constitutionalism in which real governing authority is based upon “expertise” and “centrism,” and reposes in the hands of career bureaucrats, who are entitled to take drastic measures (even compromising National Security by leaking to the Press, if necessary) to defend their policy-making prerogative against usurpation by mere temporarily elected amateurs. Michael Barone also had some sarcastic things to say about this on Monday.
The Times was not inhibited from proceeding with this story, either by a request to refrain from publishing information injurious to National Security in time of war by the President of the United States, or by consideration of the questionable motives and psychological health of their informant Mr. Tice.
Tice, Risen, the New York Times and its editor and publisher have all committed very serious crimes.