Is The New York Times A Pack Of Treason Weasels?

• June 27, 2006

New York Times editor Bill Keller is puzzled
as to why the article revealing
the existence of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication,
or SWIFT program, is creating such a firestorm. Yes, checking banking records
to track terrorists is an obvious strategy, and yes the administration even
announced its intention to do so after 9/11 (a program that the Times
editorial board even advocated
immediately after the WTC attacks). But the operational details have been unknown
until now, and even the name of the program had been kept under wraps. The CIA
has proven yet again that is is a keeper of secrets that can keep no secrets:
Coalition of the Willing members and other international partners in the War
on Terror must be wondering what details of cooperation with the United States
won’t likewise end up on the front page of the New York Times.


Riduan Isamuddin a/k/a Hambali	Uzair Paracha

Bill Keller’s own argument that these revelations are no big deal because the
administration itself ‘trumpeted’ its existence is refuted by the article in
question: it mentions that Uzair
Paracha was convicted in 2005 due to an investigation involving SWIFT, and
that it was also instrumental in capturing Riduan Isamuddin, better known as
Hambali. Yeah, tracking financial
records around the world is an obvious way to find terrorists, but apparently
Paracha and Hambali didn’t know enough details to avoid getting caught. As Hugh
Hewitt has suggested, al-Qaeda can now reverse
engineer Hambali’s transactions to find out where they went wrong.

The government argued that "the anti-terror program would no longer be
effective if it became known, because international bankers would be unwilling
to cooperate and terrorists would find other ways to move money," and
indeed, the New York Times may well have taken away a proven and effective
tool in the War on Terror, a war that is primarily an intelligence-driven enterprise.

The rule in journalism now is that ‘information wants to be free,’ and if secrets
can make it past the goalie it is a fair score (and the Pulitzer is the trophy).
This however is an abuse of journalistic responsibility, and violates the balancing
test that says if the harm of revealing secrets outweighs the public’s interest
in knowing the secrets, the press should voluntarily keep it under wraps.

Thus, what is so galling about the SWIFT revelation is that it was so completely
gratuitous.

Lawbreaking, abuse of the legal process, incompetence and so forth are all
fair game for reporting, in that abuses are detrimental to national security,
and exposing these weaknesses actually strengthens the war effort. This breaks
down however, when there are no abuses or illegalities, and disclosure does
nothing to improve or strengthen national security, and in fact harms it.

Notice what the Times article does not mention. Unlike the NSA wiretap
story it has no allegations of illegality. This is because the SWIFT program
is perfectly legal: banking is probably the most heavily regulated industry
in the United States, and the War on Drugs has taught us that there is virtually
no expectation of privacy whatsoever in banking records vis-a-vis the
government. The Supreme Court in United
States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) held that there are no Fourth
Amendment rights nor privacy rights in bank records, and there are hundreds
of prosecutions every year for structuring
and other forms of cyberlaundering where the government issues nothing more
than a subpoena to obtain bank records. Nor has the Times asserted that there
were any abuses of the SWIFT program.

The tepid justification the Times has offered is that the need to know about
this program and the potential abuses therein is somehow in the ‘public interest.’
Well guess what, every single government program whether secret or not
is a possible tool for abuse, and thus every conceivable government program
and secret is a justified target for exposure according to the Times’ self-serving
standards.

The government has lived up to its end of the bargain by refraining from prosecuting
journalists and thus not chilling their free speech. Journalists have not reciprocated,
but this is not entirely their fault. The government is partly to blame for
this, because the press and the Department of Justice have reached an accord
whereby once secrets get out into the public, there will be no prosecution.
There was no prosecution when the Chicago Tribune revealed that intelligence
had broken the Japanese
codes during World War II (leading to the turning point victory at Midway).
Fortunately, the Japanese were not reading open source intelligence, and the
government did not prosecute in order to keep the revelations from getting overseas.

The New York Times learned firsthand that there is no penalty for reporting
national security secrets when it published the Pentagon Papers. In that case,
New
York Times. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971), Supreme Court Justice Byron White

specifically cited section 793(e) of 18 U.S.C., on unauthorized possession
of a document relating to the national defense, as well as sections 797 (graphical
representations of military installations) and 798 (code and cryptographic information),
and wrote: “I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under
these sections on facts that would not justify…the imposition of a prior
restraint.” [emphasis added].

The Justice Department did not take the step of prosecuting Daniel
Ellsberg, because of the scandal surrounding the break-in of his psychiatrist’s
office, and so fate helped set today’s hand-off policy regarding journalist
prosecutions.

There are no such security or political issues in the SWIFT case, and this
provides the government with a golden opportunity to put a check on a grossly
irresponsible press that has proven itself incapable of policing itself. The
Department of Justice needs to empanel a Grand Jury and haul the reporters before
them to find out who leaked the details of this program to the press. Journalists
have absolutely no immunity here – they can sit in jail for months for contempt
of court as did Judith Miller until they give up the goods, and then DoJ can
prosecute the New York Times itself. If they will not act responsibly, responsibility
must be thrust upon them. The gravity of the War on Terror compels it.

In the meantime, we can forgive the poor Times reader if they can no
longer figure out if leaks are good or bad. The SWIFT leak is
the obverse of the hysterial reaction to the Plame leaks, a sort of ho-hum business-as-usual
exposure according to the Times, with the salient difference that the
SWIFT case actually impinges on national security. Which is why the liberal
Times could care less.

Crossposted from WILLisms.com

Tags: War On Terror

http://Array Aerdrie

Then why is everybody harping on the NYT when the LA Times and WSJ published similar stories? Why no public outcry against them? And if Al Quaeda is as internet savvy as everyone says, then this whole arguement is moot. Even the government knows that they’re still getting money funneled to them. They’re just using sources other than international banks.
http://standupforthenyt.blogspot.com/ Greg

I find the recent NRO series of articles entitled “They’re just more important than you are”, “Stop the Leaks” and “Government by and for the New York Times” troubling. Can they really sit there with straight faces and admonish the NYT for publishing information about financial monitoring without somewhere, anywhere, acknowledging that George W. Bush approved the disclosure of a covert CIA agent’s identity to the press in order to defend flawed WMD claims in Iraq and then lied about it? Do they not want to mention that this president, who has shown nothing but contempt for the American press, whose NSA acitivites have been of questionable legality, and who has in general tried and been given leeway by a weakling Republican Congress to expand his authority as much as possible perhaps made this bed in which he now lies? Is it shocking that the press does not give Bush any benefit of the doubt when it comes to matters of civil rights? Should the press believe this administration, which we know lies to reporters by lying to their own press secretary? Conservatives should man-up and acknowledge in their writing that when you lie to the press you lose credibility, and when you lose credibility people in general don’t listen to you anymore. No matter how much they try to say Bush didn’t lie about “leaking” information, or didn’t go back on his word to fire anyone who was involved in the “leak”, the truth remains. George W. Bush lied about not knowing how Valarie Plame’s identity was revealed, and he lied about how he would handle the “leaker” when he found out who it was.

That action had consequences. I submit that if that had not happened, if Scott McClellan did not stand before the White House press corps and say that Karl Rove was not involved and then later refuse to answer questions about his involvement when it was clear he was, the destabilization between the Adminstration and the press would not have occurred. When the highest government authority in the world lies to the press this destabilization becomes dangerous, since the press no longer feels it can trust the adminstration to be forthcoming about anything and, left to their own, they go about their business of investigative reporting.

As a liberal Democrat who higly values the civil rights that make this country unique, and who has a young daughter who I want to grow up in a safe America, I damn well hope that all potential terrorists are hunted down and killed. I don’t care if my phone calls are tapped. I too wish national security secrets didn’t keep coming out via the press, since I don’t want to see a dirty bomb go off in New York or Philadelphia or anywhere else. But the deterioration of the Adminstration’s relationship with the press is a result of a reckless president operating under the assumption that he doesn’t have to communicate with the press honestly. And so conservatives bashing the NYT miss the main point – Bush’s lying to the press about matters of national security has made America less safe.

I hope that the next president we have, Democrat or Republican, isn’t a liar and understands the role of the press in public life and the value of treating them honestly. Perhaps one consequence that occurs when an administration lies to the press is that the press no longer trusts you to exercise your powers responsibly. Not trusting people who lie to you once is a simple lesson I learned long ago and one I plan to teach to my daugther. So why don’t conservatives be strong Republican types and do something novel – accept responsibility for something this bumbling administration has done and acknowledge that past dishonesty has consequences.

Greg B.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Weasel may be the wrong word. Rats? Vermin? may be more correct.
http://blogs.wizbangblog.com/author/index.php?author=Rodney%20Graves sayanything-42

Ken,

The WSJ was fed the story by Treasury when it became obvious that the NYT and the LAT were going to publish over the objections of the Government. Think of it as a spoiling attack. The WSJ was viewed as more likely to deal with the story in an even handed manner, thus blunting the hyperventilation of the Two Treasonous Times.

The WSJ relates why they published the story here.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
rodney.g.graves@gmail.com
Aerdrie

I have a question. How can something be considered ‘classified’ when they, 1) publish a magazine that openly talks about what they are doing, and 2) have a website up and running that talks about it AND you don’t even have to sign up for anything in order to access said site? There is even an entry in Wikipedia about S.W.I.F.T. If you don’t believe me, check it out. Here are the addresses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Greg, name one thing Bush lied about.

Please provide a citation to back up your claim.
diane

Welcome, Greg. Good post.

. So why don’t conservatives be strong Republican types and do something novel – accept responsibility for something this bumbling administration has done and acknowledge that past dishonesty has consequences.

Greg B.

Some have, like Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson who admits that the administration ‘played a hoax on the American people’ and admits to being part of it and says it was an awful way for him to end his decades old honorable career in the military adn government, lastly working under Colin Powell, and watching the dog and pony show go down at the U.N.

There are the retired Generals who have come out and denounced what this administration has done in Iraq.

Each of these, of course, receives the kind of repsonse you have here and everyone who denounces the kind of games and deception the Bush administration lives by will get a dose of the same from these very fiercely loyal and deluded Bush supporting bloggers.

But, don’t give up. The Supreme Court ruling today was a victory and every small victory is a step in the right direction.

The new Iraqi government wants us out, Karzai has had enough of our wanton killing, the world is tired and war-weary watching us devastate Iraq.

Perhaps the scales are tipping and enough sane Americans have had hit their limit. I know many who have.
robert108

When Wilkerson comes on this blog and presents his own thinking, we can reply to it. Until then, we have only your partisan agendized word for it. Since you have zero credibility, for a host of reasons, that simply isn’t good enough. We don’t trust you to speak honestly for anyone.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Greg parrots, Can they really sit there with straight faces and admonish the NYT for publishing information about financial monitoring without somewhere, anywhere, acknowledging that George W. Bush approved the disclosure of a covert CIA agent’s identity to the press in order to defend flawed WMD claims in Iraq and then lied about it?

There was no disclosure of a “covert” CIA agent. Valerie Plame was in no way “covert”. The last part of your statement is hogwash.

Do they not want to mention that this president, who has shown nothing but contempt for the American press, whose NSA acitivites have been of questionable legality, and who has in general tried and been given leeway by a weakling Republican Congress to expand his authority as much as possible perhaps made this bed in which he now lies?

What are you babbling about here? Specifics please.

Should the press believe this administration, which we know lies to reporters by lying to their own press secretary?

What “lies”? Specifics please.

Conservatives should man-up and acknowledge in their writing that when you lie to the press you lose credibility, and when you lose credibility people in general don’t listen to you anymore.

You definitely lied earlier in your comment and now have little credibility. You should “man-up” and acknowledge this.

No matter how much they try to say Bush didn’t lie about “leaking” information, or didn’t go back on his word to fire anyone who was involved in the “leak”, the truth remains. George W. Bush lied about not knowing how Valarie Plame’s identity was revealed, and he lied about how he would handle the “leaker” when he found out who it was.

See? You’re lying here. You have no credibility now.

That action had consequences. I submit that if that had not happened, if Scott McClellan did not stand before the White House press corps and say that Karl Rove was not involved and then later refuse to answer questions about his involvement when it was clear he was, the destabilization between the Adminstration and the press would not have occurred.

Whatever. Regardless about whatever fantasies you are concocking up, the press hasn’t like Bush since day one and has treated him with animosity since day one.

By the way – nice spin with blaming a freaking NYT leak that damages our national security on Bush. Kudos. Most Bush Derangement sufferers don’t have the mental capacity to do what you just did.
robert108

Yes, Greg, were you as concerned with the previous President, who was proven in a court of law to be a liar? Not to mention lying to the nation on TV? The President didn’t blow the cover of a covert CIA agent. You lie when you say that. She was a desk jockey in a CIA domestic facility, and she was outed by her husband, who lied about foreign policy matters, and who may be involved in the yellowcake scam, although that is yet to be proven. You are so concerned about that, but not about the NYT blowing two very important anti-terrorism projects? You just don’t track.
robert108

Greg: The press lost their credibility when they lied about the Tet Offensive. Check it out. The President gives the press a lot more respect than they deserve, IMO.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Heheheh Whistler, you left out curs, cockroaches, pond scum, slime mold . . .
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

diane projects, Each of these, of course, receives the kind of repsonse you have here and everyone who denounces the kind of games and deception the Bush administration lives by will get a dose of the same from these very fiercely loyal and deluded Bush supporting bloggers.

You’re projecting again diane. Of course, replace “Bush” with “America’s enemies” and you’re describing yourself. You’re the deceiver.

The new Iraqi government wants us out, Karzai has had enough of our wanton killing…

Of course the new Iraqi government wants us out. But not right now.

…the world is tired and war-weary watching us devastate Iraq.

We haven’t devastated Iraq. Don’t be silly. The country is still standing and is doing better than it was before.

Perhaps the scales are tipping and enough sane Americans have had hit their limit. I know many who have.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

You’ve got nothing but juvenile emotional-based anti-American rants.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

It isn’t that SWIFT is secret, it is that they were cooperating with the CIA in a classified program that was (supposed to be) secret.
robert108

In a word, YES.
Bat One

Rodney is correct. The WSJ was fed the story when it became known that NYT and LAT were going to ignore the pleas from the Administration and publish the story anyway. By giving the story to WSJ, the White House hoped to lessen the impact of the “scoop” aspect of the Times’ publications. Also, of course, WSJ is much more sympathetic to the administration editorially than either of the other two papers.

Robert108,

As you already know, the NYT corporation is in serious financial and corporate difficulty, and there may a real question whether “Pinch” can hold on much longer. There is a certain ruthless reality to cascading circulation and a similarly falling stock price, which kinda transcend the sanctimonious hyperbole of the leftist ideologues. Investors are looking at ROI, not the President’s Rasmussen or Zogby poll numbers.

Talk about brutality!? What a bitch!
robert108

Aerdrie: Both the LAT and the WSJ published after the NYT had already broken the story. The cat was already out of the bag.
robert108

Aerdrie: To say the least, the cost/benefit on this one just doesn’t work out. The cost: a significant decrease in our ability to track and prevent terrorist funding. The benefit: more publicity for the NYT in their “Get the President” campaign. Everyone in America suffers for this one, except the leadership of the NYT corporation. Haters of big corporations should weigh in on this one. Where are they?
robert108

Aerdrie: The specific info published by the NYT was not beneficial to the program, which is undoubtedly the reason they published it. When you are dealing with intel, specific details are vital, not simply generalities about the existence of a program. If this is known info, why did the NYT bother to publish it and to make a big deal about it?
http://standupforthenyt.blogspot.com/ Greg B.

To reply to some of the more absurd logic on this board that has been posted in response to my original post:

1) Valerie Plame was not covert: If that is true, why did Bush say 2 years ago that the leaking of her name was a very serious matter? Why did he say that he would fire anyone who was involved in the leaking of her name? If she wasn’t covert, why is (was) Fitzgerald investigating whether or not someone revealed her name? Do you think Fitzgerald just doesn’t get it, doesn’t understand that she wasn’t covert? This is a silly response.

2) Bush didn’t lie: Well, if you think he didn’t lie when he said, in response to specific questions about the leaking of Plame’s name, that he didn’t know how it happened and that he would fire anyone who leaked classified information, then I don’t know what your idea of an honest president is. Was I upset when Clinton lied? Of course? Did Clinton actually lie? Well, according to your logic, no. Clinton said he did not have sexual relations, which was true according to the specific legal definition the special prosecutor came up with. But this was of course a slippery answer and it amounts to a lie, because although what he apparently did with Monica did not technically fit with the legal term of sexual relations, what he said doesn’t pass the BS meter. Bush, WHEN ASKED ABOUT PLAME SPECIFICALLY, responded that the revealing of her name was a very serious matter important to national security, and that he would fire anyone who leaked classified information (again, answering a question specifically about her). Later, when it was CLEAR THAT BUSH and ROVE WERE INVOLVED IN THE REVEALING OF HER NAME (note that I avoid the term “leak”), Republicans came out saying that Bush technically cannot leak, since he can declassify information as he sees fit. This is, according to David Brooks and Rich Lowrey, two conservative columnists (one with the NYT and the other with the National Review), splitting hairs in a manner similar to Clinton’s sexual relations debacle. But more to an earlier question – what did I think about Clinton’s denying his involvement? I thought it was awful, stupid, dishonerable, and shameful. Not presidential. But I think what Bush did is worse, since it involves national security (more important than personal sexual affairs). And I think it is very weak of you to not recognize that what they both did was essentially to specifically mislead to the degree that the deception counts as a lie.

To summarize: Arguments that Plame’s identity was not a secret or was not important information do not jive with what the president himself said on several occasions (look it up yourself, since if you don’t know what he said you should, having posted so vehemently on the topic. ie, it isn’t my job to spoonfeed you news). And arguments that Bush didn’t lie about knowing how her name got to the press are the same as the bogus arguments that Clinton supporters used to say that he didn’t lie about sexual relations. C’mon, this is just plain common sense.

So, now, instead of quoting each part of this email and using your high school debate skills to debunk each specific element, why doesn’t some Bush supporter give his or her own factually correct account of what they think happened. In doing so, please touch on a couple facts: 1) Bush implied very clearly that he did not know how Plame’s name was revealed, 2) Scott McClellan said to the press that Rove told him that he was not involved in the process, 3) later it was revealed that Bush did know how Plame’s name was revealed, and 4) later it was revealed that Rove was involved. These are the facts. Interpret them.
Aerdrie

It all comes down to this: Let’s agree to disgree. Dear God, please grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls, the courage to debate with honest opponents, and the wisdom the know the difference. Amen
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

It was not known info. No one knew that SWIFT was cooperating with the CIA.

The LA dogtrainer did not come up with this story on their own, their journalists don’t know their asses from a hole in the ground. They were acting as a ‘wingman’ for the NYTimes according to theories floating around out there.

The Wall Street Journal didn’t help break this story, as far as I know.
robert108

dd: Exactly right. They don’t seem to care about the big abortion corporations, either.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

My original post on the Treasury story was based on the Wall Street Journal reporting, and it was clear from their reporting that they’d gotten the information when it was released to them by an authorized government official.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Is The New York Times A Pack Of Treason Weasels?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments