The guiding philosophy on West 43rd Street.
by Heather Mac Donald
07/03/2006, Volume 011, Issue 40
BY NOW IT'S UNDENIABLE: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.
The Times's latest revelation of a national security secret appeared on last Friday's front page--where no al Qaeda operative could possibly miss it. Under the deliberately sensational headline, "Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror," the Times blows the cover on a highly targeted program to locate terrorist financing networks. According to the report, since 9/11, the Bush administration has obtained information about terror suspects' international financial transactions from a Belgian clearinghouse of international money transfers.
The procedure for obtaining that information could not be more solicitous of privacy and the rule of law: Agents are only allowed to seek information based on intelligence tying specific individuals to al Qaeda; they must document the intelligence behind every search request and maintain an electronic record of every search; and, in an inspired civil liberties innovation that would undoubtedly garner kudos from the Times had a Democratic administration devised it, a board of independent auditors from banks reviews the subpoena requests to make sure that only terror suspects' transactions are traced. Any use of the data for criminal investigations into drug trafficking, say, or tax fraud is banned. The administration briefed congressional leaders and the 9/11 Commission about the system.There is nothing about this program that exudes even a whiff of illegality. The Supreme Court has squarely held that bank records are not constitutionally protected private information. The government may obtain them without seeking a warrant from a court, because the bank depositor has already revealed his transactions to his bank--or, in the case of the present program, to a whole slew of banks that participate in the complicated international wire transfers overseen by the Belgian clearinghouse known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. To get specific information about individual terror suspects, intelligence agents prepare an administrative subpoena, which is issued after extensive internal agency review. The government does not monitor a terror suspect's international wire transfers in real time; the records of his transactions are delivered weeks later. And Americans' routine financial transactions, such as ATM withdrawals or domestic banking, lie completely outside of the Swift database.
The administration strongly urged the New York Times not to expose this classified program, and for good reason. According to the Times itself, the program has proven vital in hunting down international killers. The Indonesian terrorist Hambali, who orchestrated the Bali resort bombings in 2002, was captured through the Swift program; a Brooklyn man who laundered $200,000 for al Qaeda through a Karachi bank was tracked via the program. The Wall Street Journal adds that the July 7, 2005, London subway bombings were fruitfully investigated through the Swift initiative and that a facilitator of Iraqi terrorism has been apprehended because of it.
A coterie of former and current Democratic and Republican leaders also begged the Times not to jeopardize this highly successful counterterrorism program, but the Times knew better. In a smug prepared statement, executive editor Bill Keller emotes: "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."
Now that the Times has blown the cover on this terror-tracking initiative, sophisticated terrorists will figure out how to evade it, according to the Treasury's top counterterrorism official, Stuart Levey, speaking to the Wall Street Journal. The lifeblood of international terrorism--cash--will once again flow undetected.
The bottom line is this: No classified secret necessary to fight terrorism is safe once the Times hears of it, at least as long as the Bush administration is in power. The Times justifies its national security breaches by the mere hypothetical possibility of abuse--without providing any evidence that this financial tracking program, or any other classified antiterror initiative that it has revealed, actually has been abused. To the contrary, the paper reports that one employee was taken off the Swift program for conducting a search that did not obviously fall within the guidelines.
The truth the Times evades is that while every power, public or private, can be misused, the mere possibility of abuse does not mean that a necessary power should be discarded. Instead, the rational response is to create checks that minimize the risk of abuse. Under the times own logic the US might be better off with no government at all because governmental power can be abused. It should not have newspapers, because the power of the press can be abused to harm the national interest (as the Times so amply demonstrates). Police forces should be disbanded, because police officers can overstep their authority. National security wiretaps? Heavens! Expose all of them.The Times implies a second reason it ignored the government's fervent requests to protect the program's secrecy: Large databases were involved. The Times has an attack of the vapors whenever evidence of terrorist planning is found in databases, reasoning that any program to harvest that evidence is a privacy threat and should be exposed. Such logic, if taken seriously, would mean an end to all computerized investigations and would create an impregnable shield to terrorist activity in cyberspace. Anything a terrorist does that is recorded by computers will by its very nature be interspersed among records of millions if not billions or trillions of innocent transactions by unrelated parties. That fact alone should not disable the government from seeking the evidence; it merely means that the government should follow existing procedures governing the collection of evidence--as, in the case of the Swift program, it has.
The paranoia of the New York Times's editors really has reached astonishing levels. When you think about it, virtually every piece of evidence ever gathered in criminal or national security cases is embedded in harmless activity. On the Times's theory, police officers should not walk beats looking for criminal activity, because they are observing innocent passersby as well.
The Times offers a third justification for its reckless breach of national security: "The program . . . is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records." Indeed. And 9/11 marked a significant departure from most Americans' experience of jet travel. The hijackings revealed unmistakably the need for innovative intelligence programs to disrupt future attacks. By the Times's hidebound ethic, however, anything new that the Bush administration does to protect the public is suspect and must be revealed. Needless to add, this prejudice against innovation will not prevent the Times from raising hell about Bush administration incompetence if the country is attacked again, just as the Times railed against the administration for "failing to connect the dots" before 9/11--a failure caused in large part by unnecessary civil libertarian restraints on fully lawful powers.
The Times's ritual invocation of the "public interest" cannot disguise the weakness of their argument for revealing this highly successful antiterror program. Its editors seem aware of this, and hence try to link this program to the more legitimately controversial NSA wiretapping program that was revealed (by the same reporters--Eric Lichtblau and James Risen) last December, also in defiance of administration requests. Though acknowledging in passing that the Swift program is in fact separate from the wiretapping program, the Times links them on the grounds that both "grew out of the Bush administration's desire to exploit technological tools to prevent another terrorist strike." The revelation of the NSA program has "provoked fierce public debate and spurred lawsuits," the Times notes with self-satisfaction, and thus, by implication, the Swift program should, too. Do they seriously believe the U.S. government should not exploit technological tools in the war on terror?
Al Qaeda has long worked to manipulate the media in its favor. It can disband that operation now, knowing that, unbidden, America's most powerful newspaper is looking out for its interests.
18 comments:
Again...not a secret for anyone interested in not getting caught.
Ding Ding Ding....Swift WEBSITE!!!!
Statement on compliance
Cooperating in the global fight against abuse of the financial system for illegal activities
SWIFT is solely a carrier of messages between financial institutions. The information in these messages is issued and controlled exclusively by the sending and receiving institutions. SWIFT does not hold assets nor manage accounts on behalf of customers. It does not clear or settle transactions.
Given its importance in the financial community, SWIFT takes its role in the global fight against money laundering and other illegal activities extremely seriously:
1. Responsibilities - It is SWIFT policy that its services should not be used to facilitate illegal activities. Users are urged to take all reasonable steps to prevent any misuse of the SWIFT system.
2. Cooperation - SWIFT has a history of cooperating in good faith with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and appropriate international organisations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF*), in their efforts to combat abuse of the financial system for illegal activities.
3. No comment policy - Due to the sensitive nature of these contacts, SWIFT does not comment on them.
The challenge facing the financial industry is to implement measures that prevent illegal behaviour without penalising the efficient processing of legitimate financial transactions. SWIFT is fully committed to doing its part to address this challenge and remains committed to its policy of cooperation to fight money laundering and illegal activities within the scope of its activity.
* The FATF is an inter-governmental body, which develops and promotes policies to combat money laundering. The FATF monitors progress in building effective anti-money laundering systems, it reviews laundering techniques, and it promotes the adoption and implementation of money laundering counter-measures in non-member countries.
Here's the page.
http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=6149
The president has spoken about tracking down the money many times. None of this was a secret except to the uninterested and uninformed...certainly not to a crafty terrorist.
By the way, why only mention the times, the Wall st. journal published it at the same time.
This is all bluster and ballyho ment to churn up rage from the radical righties...not gonna work...again.
are you blind or just stupid?
Why are countless people who actually know something saying this program worked?
Why was your liberal lover Murtha making calls to the NYT telling them not to run this?
What was the benefit?
We can see that MANY people who are not simply liberal sheep understand what has happened...
Which is what, exactly, that is so bad?
Can't be a secret if you're spreading it all over the i-net.
So, someone who reports on a program that wasn't a secret to begin with, isn't blowing any kind of cover.
'nuff said. We've been through this already.
Again, move along lil' bunny, please. Your bullshit is becoming most... deep brown.
While the editor of the New York Times confirmed that he was called by Murtha and ONE OTHER Democrat, he made no statement whatsoever as to the content of the call nor any confirmation that these people asked the Times not to publish the article.
So unless you can actually site SOME SOURCE where the caller confirmed that they asked the Times not to publish, you have an untruth here.
According to the Boston Globe:
"A search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT."
The New York Times did not reveal the program. Its existance was a matter of public record. What the Times published was a story revealing that the Bush administration had circumvented Congressional and Judicial oversight (so what's new) and had never gone to Congress to provide legislative authority or mandate any oversight framework for the program.
And THAT'S why Cheney and his side-kick are hoppin' mad.
who is saying that Jim, the Boston globe???
I don't pretent to read every damn thing, but just some liberal at the Globe making a comment doesn't do it for me...
and I have not found a link yet saying what murtha exactly said, but why is is supporting a resolution attacking the NYT???
its a legit question...
The House yesterday approved a Republican-crafted resolution condemning news organizations for revealing a covert government program to track terrorist financing, saying the disclosure had "placed the lives of Americans in danger."
Among Western Pennsylvania lawmakers, the resolution was supported by Republican Reps. Phil English of Erie, Melissa Hart of Bradford Woods, Tim Murphy of Upper St. Clair, John Peterson of Venango and Bill Shuster of Blair. It was opposed by Democratic Reps. Mike Doyle of Forest Hills and John Murtha of Johnstown.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06181/702317-84.stm
game said: but just some liberal at the Globe making a comment doesn't do it for me...
Who says it was a liberal?
Again, "can't be a secret if you're spreading it all over the i-net.
So, someone who reports on a program (any program, agenda, whatever) that wasn't a secret to begin with, isn't blowing any kind of cover."
"The New York Times did not reveal the program. Its existance was a matter of public record. What the Times published was a story revealing that the Bush administration had circumvented Congressional and Judicial oversight (so what's new) and had never gone to Congress to provide legislative authority or mandate any oversight framework for the program."
"'nuff said. We've been through this already. Again, move along lil' bunny, please."
What, you got a brain lapse or something? You still don't get it? OIC, the usual. Way over your head.
Here is how much of a secret the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program is. Right at the U.S. Treasury site, a week ago.
the United Nations publicly mentioned the money-tracking program four years ago. ("In fact, a United Nations group...recommended in 2002 that other countries should follow the United States' lead in monitoring suspicious transactions handled by Swift [a banking consortium]. The report is public and available on the United Nations Web site," the editorial said.)
Nov., 2002
where does it say SWIFT in any of your links???
SWIFT and other programs like it are a component of them, m'dear.
Accept it, you're too dumb to handle this one.
And, that wasn't my point -- the point that SWIFT, and all of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programs combined have been around since before all of this happened. They weren't reporting anything new or unknown.
That was the point.
If you want to find SWIFT at the U.N. yourself, go do it. You'll find it there.
To add to that, in April, this was posted.
Gee, that's nice. Let's give it all away to the terrorists. Why not. We've given them everything else.
dedanna is so blind by her hate for the war and GWB, doesn't understand anything...there are link after link of general knowledge that everyone already knows...terrorists know but they still did it, because they didn't know the specifics...
no specifics, PEOPLE WHO HAVE A CLUE, UNLIKE YOURSELF, including MURTHA, are pissed they did this...so I'll listen to them, people who are in the govt and know what is going on...and not listen to a political hack who has no ability to think about ANY issue, just toe the liberal party, hate GWB line
Think what you want. You will be the one misinformed.
Again, it's all way over your head anyway. Nothing to do with hate, btw.
Post a Comment