Continuing on in its obsessive tradition of undermining US national security, the NYTimes does it yet again with another hit piece on how the admin is going about trying to locate terrorists:
WASHINGTON, June 22 - Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.
The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas or into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.
Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said. The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, “has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities,” Stuart Levey, an undersecretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview Thursday. The program is grounded in part on the president’s emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans’ records.
The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans’ financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.
[…]
The Bush administration has made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts. Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.
[…]
Bill Keller, the newspaper’s executive editor, said: “We have listened closely to the administration’s arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration’s extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.”
Brian at Iowa Voice nails it:
The only public interest being served here is the agenda by those on the anti-war left and in the media, to tell you in mainstream America that the government is abusing you, when they’re not.
Yep.
Shame on you, NYTimes.
Fri AM Update and Bump: Malkin has a link roundup, and notes that the LATimes has gotten in on the act, too.
Once again, the media puts the ‘public interest’ ahead of national security interests. Maybe it’s just me, but I thought it was in the public interest for the gov’t to be vigilant against terrorists … apparently the NYT and LAT disagree.
(Originally posted 6-22-06 at 9:29 pm ET)
Prior:
- Memo to the NYT/IHT: Trying to detect unusual calling patterns is not “eavesdropping”
- NSA ’scandal’ leak fallout continues - AT&T and Verizon being sued
- Latest NSA scandal leaves Americans unfazed
- The ACLU has a database of its own - and more NSA news
- The latest non-scandal scandal news involving the NSA
- FDR and domestic surveillance
- Sen. Russ Feingold demagogues NSA surveillance ’scandal’
- It doesn’t get any better than Jeff Goldstein (re: Feingold’s stunt)
- Senator Russ Feingold calls for censure of Bush
- House approves Patriot Act, Senate panel rejects broad NSA inquiry
- NSA Surveillance Program ’scandal’ - update
- Congressional probe of NSA surveillance may not happen afterall
- Admin briefs Congress on NSA surveillance
- Thomas Sowell on the NSA ’scandal’ controversy
- NSA ’scandal’ fallout: convicted terrorist conspirators wanting cases thrown out
- Intelligence officials: NSA leak has undermined ability to fight terrorism
- On politicizing the Patriot Act and the NSA ’scandal’
- NYT: NSA scandal is worse than WWII Japanese internment camps
- Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?
| Email This Post | Print This |
I can’t imagine democrats complaining about this, since they claim only rich republicans have all the money….!
Comment by HadaAbeche @ 6/23/2006 - 2:14 am
The New York Times needs to go the way of the dodo.
Comment by camojack @ 6/23/2006 - 3:44 am
The New York Times has already gone the way of the dodo. They took a walk off the map a long time ago.
Comment by Lachen @ 6/23/2006 - 3:56 am
The NYT needs to go the way of Saddam’s precious evil sons.
Comment by forest hunter @ 6/23/2006 - 4:45 am
Once again TOM (The Old Media) has confused the public being interested (and therefore buying papers) with the public interest. They are not the same thing, and in cases like this and the others they’ve exposed the agenda they’ve followed has actually hurt the best interests of the American people.
Comment by Jim @ 6/23/2006 - 9:37 am
It is high time the NYTimes and LATimes be branded terrorist support organizations and treat them as such.
I wish the administration would gather into a room many of the major nay sayers about Iraq having WMD, this would include reporters, editors, and Anti-war activists. Bring in some of the WMD they say doesn’t exist, like a couple of those 500 shells just found, and OPEN THEM! If there is no danger, then the MSM won’t have anything to say, and if we’re right, the MSM won’t have anymore naysaying to say.
Comment by PCD @ 6/23/2006 - 10:03 am
Is the NYT a bunch of frickin idiots or a bunch of frickin traitors?
Comment by G-Monster @ 6/23/2006 - 11:17 am
I think we can officially call the NY Times the enemy. This isn’t just a disagreement. This is the NY TImes working against the United States efforts in the WOT. I usually call them negligent or working without due diligence to find out the facts. Now I saw they are ACTIVELY working against the security of the United States and common decent people.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/23/2006 - 11:31 am
You meant of interest to the terrorists Bill Keller the enemy of the United States and common decent people.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/23/2006 - 11:33 am
Ok… this is what I don’t get about you rightwingers. Why do you expect a damn news outlet to be “patriotic” or pro-US??? No news outlet (print/media/whatsoever) should have a bias towards any govt, organization.. nothing. It should be a window to information. If the reporters get access to some information, it is their journalistic duty to REPORT it. It doesn’t matter how classified it is. This “leak” just proves an inefficiency of the Administration to keep the program under cover. Don’t whine cuz you couldn’t keep it a secret. NYT or any newspaper should print news - NEWS… nothing else should be a part of their mission. So too bad the program got exposed. Is it unfortunate? yes. Is the program kinda scary? kinda yeah. Its upto the citizens to decide now. Does it help the enemy? of course cuz now they will be more careful about bank transactions. But that comes with the territory of free press and free society. If you wanna give that up then the terrorists have ideally won. Once again, no news outlet should be an agent of any Govt. Or else they should start calling themselves state-controlled or whatever - smacks of Chinese doctrine here.
Comment by Bobby @ 6/23/2006 - 11:39 am
I recently read a story about how Walter Cronkite singlehandedly helped turn the tide of vietnam war with his false reporting of the TET offensive.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/Generals/giap.htm
Walter Cronkite went on to become a bigwig at CBS.
Maybe that is where the NY Times get their motivation.
Comment by G-Monster @ 6/23/2006 - 11:58 am
Hugh Hewitt’s open letter to Bill Keller
Comment by Baklava @ 6/23/2006 - 12:04 pm
Bobby asked, “Why do you expect a damn news outlet to be “patriotic” or pro-US???”
I would say the premise of your question is incorrect. It should read, “Why do [we] expect a news organization to not print classified information about a program that is actively finding terrorists during a War on Terror”.
So… The answer to that question is - Because the journalists if they were interested in the truth would know that the freedoms they enjoy to print the truth and news is at stake during war and they should not UNDERMINE programs that are currently providing security to the American people. That is acting like an enemy not a news organization. As a news organization they can report the details when the progam is not actively providing for our security. Such as when things are declassified like the Cuban Missile Crisis papers just got declassified.
Bobby wrote, “It should be a window to information.”
As in it should’ve broadcast our D-Day invasion before it happened? I think 95% of people would disagree with you there Bobby
Bobby incorrectly wrote, “If the reporters get access to some information, it is their journalistic duty to REPORT it.”
Not if it works against the security of this nation during a time of war.
Bobby with condescencion wrote, “This “leak” just proves an inefficiency of the Administration to keep the program under cover. Don’t whine cuz you couldn’t keep it a secret.”
It was a program run by the CIA overseen by the Treasury Department in cooperation with Banking Institutions. When dealing with classified information it is the duty of everyone discussing it to not disseminate it to the public like the NYTimes did.
Bobby laughingly said, “Is the program kinda scary? kinda yeah.”
Are you working with the terrorists financially?
Bobby inaccurately stated a false suicide pact that democratic nations do not subscribe to by saying, “Does it help the enemy? of course cuz now they will be more careful about bank transactions. But that comes with the territory of free press and free society.”
It doesn’t. News organizations in a democratic nation need to follow the rule of law, not undermine the security of a nation during a war.
Bobby lied by saying, “If you wanna give that up then the terrorists have ideally won.”
The terrorists win when news organizations feed them classified infomation that undermines the national security during a time of war.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/23/2006 - 12:42 pm
Bobby,
I don’t think you would feel the same way if you lost a friend/relative/limb in a terrorist attack that could have been prevented, but wasn’t, due to the fact that the NY Times printed this story.
Bobby, you are a stupid man, and I guarantee your opinion is in the small minority. The American public wants to be safe.
I don’t care if you are a democrat or a republican, you want to be able to go to a restaraunt, a mall or a nightclub and be free of worry from a terrorist bomb.
Go live in Isreal and get a feel what it is like to live in a society targeted by terrorists. Then come back here and spout your BS.
We are very lucky to live in the United States, and lucky to have an administration that is doing everything they can, looking out for us.
Trust me, your safety is not a priority whatsoever of the NY Times.
G-Monster
Comment by G-Monster @ 6/23/2006 - 12:45 pm
99.9999999999999999999% of the American People want to be safe. The other .000000000000000000000001% work for news outlets like the NY Times.
Twist any poll you want. These are the numbers.
Comment by G-Monster @ 6/23/2006 - 1:00 pm
Sorry G. I work in the state of CA and find plenty of terrorist leftist sympathizers and people with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
These people do not think there is a war. It’d be nice to believe they do but they don’t and there is a large number of these people…. in states like mine.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/23/2006 - 1:06 pm
WW2 Posters for those who are shortsighted.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/23/2006 - 1:20 pm
One big point everybody here is missing is - no information is classified for any news organization. I know everybody wants to feel safe. I’m sure I’m in the minority but that’s because everybody is emotionally charged up. You are putting the blame where it doesn’t belong. If you are upset about the leakage - point your fingers at the person who leaked it - not the messenger. I repeat again - no information that concerns the public (whether it is about the public’s benefit or danger) can be categorized as a classified information for a press media. It is a free information world - whatever info you get sitting here in US, every damn terrorist gets it sitting 1000s of miles away - again that comes with the territory of free information flow. If in future the Govt doesn’t want the terrorists to get access to these information, they should make sure the closet is friggin airtight. News organization in a free democratic country (and I’m assuming we all want the US to be a model free democratic country) must follow the rule of law but i’m not sure if there is a law that specifically prohibits printing stuff classified for the Govt.
Comment by Bobby @ 6/23/2006 - 1:35 pm
Dennis Lormel writes:
He writes more.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/23/2006 - 1:42 pm
Now in all fairness.. if NYT isn’t fair to the Americans and hides information (secret plans by terror cells) available from sources embedded in Middle East that could HELP the Administration in nabbing them - then it would be appropriate to hold them accountable. Until that is proven, I’m not sure if NYT deserves criticism for this leak. Like I said.. NYT should be a window that should be transparent both ways…
Comment by Bobby @ 6/23/2006 - 1:43 pm
Bobby funnily wrote, “point your fingers at the person who leaked it”
The person who leaked it to the public was the NY Times. I also do fault those who talked to the NY Times. BOTH are at fault.
View the WW2 posters I linked to. The press could’ve reported troop movements preceding D-Day but didn’t for a reason. There are LOTS of people involved in a war. You can piece together a lot of things just by being friends with people in high and low places. I could not by conscience ever be a fried of anyone in the NT Times after this. Or if they were a friend the most I’d talk about is cake recipes.
You finished your funny diatribe about how utopian things should be (forming a suicide pact for ourselves because we are supposed to be free) but your admission that you aren’t sure is well placed because you are FACTUALLY wrong. It’d be wise to stop while you are as far ahead (even though behind) as you are. Step back from the keyboard and do the due diligence (stop being negligent and unsure) before you continue writing.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/23/2006 - 1:48 pm
Your 1:43 post shows you still do not get it. The first ammendment does not give the press the right to publish classified information, incite a riot, etc.
I’m not sure where you went to school but I’d seriously reexamine what you learned in it’s entirety based on 3 posts.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/23/2006 - 1:50 pm
Bobby,
I will cut you slack as you didn’t come back at me as hard as I went at you, but I still think you are stupid. The NY Times did a very bad thing. Let’s pick another subject to debate before I scream at you some more.
Comment by G Monster @ 6/23/2006 - 2:14 pm
Baklava,
I’m in California and my sister is a liberal. I try to stay away from politics when I am around her.
Although I know I can win any debate, I try to talk about the liberal ideology that I agree with.
Although these are short conversations, it is much nicer than beating her up in a debate, which is what I used to do.
Comment by G Monster @ 6/23/2006 - 2:24 pm
I do not bring up politics in the workplace I’m at. The libs here discussing things with outright hatred and vitriol and do not know that I’m a conservative hearing this stuff.
I like my job.
Notice I said 95% though and not 50% or 49%. Not all liberals would agree with Bobby’s statement. Only 5% - 10% would I think.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/23/2006 - 2:50 pm
During the Iraq war I had several debates with Iranian co-workers that were against us going to Iraq. One of them went to Iran on a vacation, and after coming back, informed the others, that the people of Iran wished the U.S. had come to liberate Iran instead of Iraq. The office opinions changed quite a bit after that.
Comment by G Monster @ 6/23/2006 - 3:16 pm
Hitler and Tojo would have loved the NYT telling them all the secret plans FDR was making to fight them in WW2
Comment by stackja @ 6/23/2006 - 9:34 pm
- Just keep telling yourself they’re only looking out for your Constitutional rights, because they so “care”…..*cough*
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/24/2006 - 12:00 pm
Bobby..if a newspaper receives libelous information and publishes it, knowing it is libelous, they will be found guilty of libel and will be accountable for damages. Shouldn’t the same principle apply to classified information?
In fact, it does, at least as far as communications intelligence goes:
§798. Disclosure of Classified Information.
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in this subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
LINK
Comment by david foster @ 6/24/2006 - 5:15 pm
Thank David. Do you think the boneheads like Bobby can/will ever grasp what it means to not aid and abet the enemy or for that matter know what the enemy is/does/looks like?
Comment by forest hunter @ 6/24/2006 - 9:49 pm
All of which is why I like the Brits’ “Official Secrets Act” — it gives their gov’t the authority to head off this kind of treason.
Bobby –
Rights of any kind carry with them a certain degree of responsibility. The NYT has abused their 1st Amendment rights, and they have not done so in the interests of responsible reporting. Like the rest of the angry left, they have become so consumed with their anti-Bush agenda that trying to make him fail has become a higher priority than such picayunes as the safety of the American people or ethical journalism.
Comment by Seth @ 6/28/2006 - 1:07 am