Republican Co-Chair of 9/11 Commission Says Times Piece Didn't Put American Lives At Risk, Contradicting Cheney and Tony Snow

Thomas Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey who co-chaired the 9-11 Commission, has said in an interview with me that he doesn't think the Times's publication of its story on the U.S.'s secret financial surveillance program put American lives at risk.

In the interview, Kean also defended the Times's right to publish the story -- though he said he didn't agree with their decision -- and said he opposes any criminal prosecution of the paper for publishing its scoop. Of attacks on the Times like those from Dick Cheney and White House press secretary Tony Snow, Kean said: "I would rather they keep the debate a moderate one...I don't think it helps."

This is important because those insisting that the Times put American security at risk by publishing the story -- including Treasury Secretary John Snow and many other critics -- have pointed specifically to Kean to bolster their case. They point out that Kean, along with other officials, privately argued against publication in discussions with top Times editors. In the interview with me, Kean did reiterate the fact that he'd made this case to the paper's top brass, and also reiterated that he thought publication ended the financial surveillance program.

But on the central question of whether the paper's story put national security or American lives at risk -- two assertions made recently by White House officials such as Cheney and Snow, and others in the GOP, such as Congressman Pete King, who is demanding criminal prosecution of the Times -- Kean appears to have broken with his fellow Republicans.

Asked what he thought of those assertions, Kean said he didn't think the paper had done either of those things, and said they were "over the top." He added: "This is one of a whole series of hundreds of programs that are out there to disrupt terrorist networks. I'm sorry it was revealed. It gave us a chance to disrupt terrorist plots. But I would not go as far as to say it put American lives at risk."

Asked if he favored criminal prosecution of the Times, Kean said: "I would be opposed to that. I may disagree with what the Times did, but it certainly wasn't a criminal act in any way. That's what news organizations do. With a free press that's what happens. I would hope that news orgganizations are enormously careful. It may have been a mistake, but it wasn't a criminal act and shouldn't be prosecuted."

Asked whether he thought allegations such as the ones made by Snow and Cheney were beneficial to the public debate, Kean questioned whether they were. "I think it heightens the level of debate," Kean told me. "It makes it more angry, probably on both sides. I would rather they keep the debate a moderate one. I've never been one to fling charges on serious issues. I don't think it helps."

Kean also said, when asked about Cheney and Snow's remarks: "I understand that they're angry. When people are angry they sometimes use language that is more extreme. I understand their anger. but I think you've got to respect the right of the news media to make judgments whether to publish something in the public interest. Whether this was right or wrong -- I think it was wrong -- I don't want to shut down the media's right to publish what it thinks is in the public interest."

In an interview posted on the National Review's web site, Kean told Byron York that he argued to Keller that the story would end the program, and also said that he thought the program was effective and legal, and that the story's eventual publication did in fact end it. Kean repeated those assertions in his interview with me. But Kean didn't address in his interview with York the question of whether the ending of the program compromised American lives or whether the Times should be prosecuted for revealing it.

Now Kean -- who signed off on his quotes after I read them back to him word for word -- has addressed the questions. And his verdict is: He doesn't think that American lives were put at risk, and the paper was within its rights to publish the story and shouldn't be prosecuted.

Adapted from a post at The Horse's Mouth.