The New York Times: Betrayal of our Republic and Common Sense
By Marcus Traianus Posted in User Blogs — Comments (58) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From the diaries . . .
There has been an overwhelmingly negative response to The New York Times exposure of our government's terrorist financial tracking efforts. Above all else, this action evinces the intransigent and venal nature of NYT editors, publishers and reporters. They have propagated additional outrage by dishonestly attempting to cloak this disclosure as evidentiary of our continued First Amendment Rights erosion. However, that insulting affirmation is only a deceitful rallying cry for the sustained attack on our President and democratic way of life. To state that our government is somehow usurping Constitutional Rights by monitoring terrorist phone calls or their financial transactions is blatantly fallacious. The subpoenas and other legal devices used to conduct this action are established
law and were further refined
by Congress.
Read on . . .
While it is never easy to gauge intent, these specious actions provide an intellectually honest observer with significant clarity. The resulting epiphany overwhelms one with a significant revelation: these irresponsible actions make us less safe by broadcasting anti-terrorist modus operandi. Tell me, where is the public good served? How shall we respond if our country is attacked again and it is determined the New York Times disclosure inhibited a chance to deter related action? These are important questions that demand answers.
It is well known amongst even the diminutively informed that our financial industry tracks
transactions Accordingly, the NYT did not say this program was illegal or without Congressional oversight. That is because examination of SWIFT, CHIPS and FED transactions is indeed not new. There are strict regulatory controls that have appropriately governed most financial transactions for years. Accordingly, any banking system neophyte can guess that financial transactions have appropriate supervision, especially when movements of funds are involved. Have you ever been fortunate enough to fill out a CTR or examined various financial statements during your tax preparation? Should that type of scrutiny be limited only to law abiding citizens? I would resolutely and rhetorically say, no. Transparency of financial transactions is an important pillar of a successful banking system. It helps build confidence by promoting awareness, insuring solvency and general soundness.
Overall, it is incontrovertible that extreme arrogance, prejudice and political affiliation were the arbiters used to determine if this story was published. Those factors are never good motivations since they blind a person to intellectual reasoning and diminish faculties critical to good judgment. That type of disposition is extraordinarily different than printing a story which truly serves the public good. That latter assertion by the NYT is an insulting continuation of their corrupt dribble. We the people have been ill served and endangered by this paper which serves as a propaganda arm for the Democrat Party. I ask rhetorically, is this the party and philosophy you will vote for in November? Will you continue to read and link to a publication when reaction to world events can be predicted like a prophet? What intellectual purpose does that serve?
This blatant, holistic assault on our President and the Republican Party has blinded the perpetrators and crossed the line into treasonous assault on our country. In this time of war, that is inexcusable. We should relentlessly pursue the perpetrators responsible under applicable
provisions of US Law. It is imperative to our collective safety.
was done only after the NYT announced they were going forward. Furthermore, if you read the two articles "side by side" there are some substantive content differences.
Overall though, no excuses. Presenting this as some type of revelation, especially for the WSJ was at a minimum poorly advised.
Steve--
re-educate me--who is the leaker?
we may be in danger of "civilizing" ourselves out of existence.
Who do you think leaked the info to the NYTimes??
> Not everyone knew there was the means to aggregate the information and derive knowledge from it.
Perhaps, but I'm not sure I totally agree with that. It's just data mining and statistics. It's possible that terorists may not have knowledge that such techniques exist, but given their hiding tactics, I'd be surprised if that were the case.
> Whats more not all that many people at all knew the particular means used to accomplish this.
I don't remember the NYT actually publishing the means used to accomplish the tracking, so much as an overview of the program.
> You do realize that many AQ operatives were caught by tracking their cell phone calls ? This was the case untill they adapted their tactics.
I haven't seen any evidence presented of tactics changes, though, or of a causal link between such changes and the NYT reporting. I'm not saying evidence doesn't exist, but I've seen primarily just assertations that such a thing did happen. Also, Zarqawi was supposedly caught via phone-tracking, which suggests that disclosing our tracking program did not impact terrorist tactics.
I mean no offense by this, but as you even say, any dummy knows that financial transactions are tracked.
If you accept that Al Qaeda and its cronies are evil but not stupid (not all of them, anyway), then unless they thought that WE were complete boobs, wouldn't they KNOW that we were trying to track their transactions?
My guess, and that's all it is, is that they do know, and they take what they are hoping are appropriate measures to obscure those transactions. Every country knows its communications are monitored by enemies, for example, but that doesn't stop us from talking -- we just hide the content behind codes.
If that's the case here, then I don't see any harm in the Times story. The reaction seems like a knee-jerk on both sides -- the cons overreacting to the disclosure, and the libs overreacting to the snooping.
financial transactions are recorded. Not everyone knew there was the means to aggregate the information and derive knowledge from it. Whats more not all that many people at all knew the particular means used to accomplish this.
You do realize that many AQ operatives were caught by tracking their cell phone calls ? This was the case untill they adapted their tactics.
the beginning of a trend:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA063006.01A.UIW_BANS_TIME
S.1595018.html
Go Texas!
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run
or should i say a second, along with me, who believe the wsj is co-responsible.
In spite of attempts by some to suggest that the WSJ was not responsible for spreading this information, the WSJ has remained silent on the baking data issue, even though they promptly editorialized against the NY Times breaking of the electronic surveillance story back in december 2005.
this editorial said:
By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses.
I'm still waiting for an editorial on this issue.
No need to be snide. As a matter of fact, I haven't heard of Mary McCarthy. Sorry.
To address your other points:
> Every Democrat/lefty in the CIA, FBI, NSA and every other government agency resigned the day Bush took over.
The issue higher up in the thread focused on politicians doing the leaking, people on the level of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. Sure, maybe there are left-leaning individual gov't employees who are somehow privy to the Administration's top secret info, and they could have leaked something, but they aren't "The Left" in the sense that Kerry , Clinton, and friends are.
> Do you really think that only the party in power is privy to national secrets.
I thought that was obvious, what with the whole NSA wiretapping thing and with this latest thing. Of COURSE the administration keeps things to itself and away from the opposing party. It's free to do so -- that's politics. The gov't is entirely Republican controlled, so the administration need let the opposition know only what it wants the opposition to know.
> and yes, you appear to be "trollish."
Sorry you feel that way.
Regardless, I did some research:
Norman Mineta
"Norman Yoshio Mineta (born November 12, 1931) is an American politician and member of the Democratic party. Mineta is currently serving in the President's Cabinet of George W. Bush as the United States Secretary of Transportation. Mineta is the only Democratic Cabinet Secretary in the Republican George W. Bush Administration. On June 23, 2006, Mineta announced his resignation after 5 1/2 years as Secretary of Transportation, effective July 7, 2006."
Mary McCarthy
The CIA agent fired recently for leaking classified info.
So, point taken: Bush has A Dem in his cabinet, and underlings handling classified info in the administration may leak it.
Had you left the snideness behind in your first reply to me, this could have been resolved much sooner and in a more civil manner.
my own rule of never debating obvious trolls!
However, if anyone was treasonous, I'm thinking it was the gov't folks who actually leaked the stuff.
The ACLU meeting just let out...we will now be inundated for the next hour or so! Precautions should be taken!
the reaction to the NYT is misplaced. The Supreme Court apparently feels that this isn't really a war, its more of a gigantic carjacking.
Maybe someone with an internet connection?
As an aside, I've not been able to get anyone to comment on (and presumably notice) that link for the past 3 days....
for beating away the moonbats.
Perhaps I should work less and lurk less, so the thread can be efffectively managed.
Just a good column by David Reinhard, the generally conservative editorial columnist for the otherwise predictably liberal Oregonian:
D ear Bill Keller:Remember me? We met in the elevator here at The Oregonian recently. Your decision to expose a secret program to track terrorist funding got me to thinking I had better write and apologize. I don't think I was sufficiently deferential on our brief ride together. I treated you like the executive editor of The New York Times who used to work for The Oregonian. I had no idea I was riding with the man who decides what classified programs will be made public during a war on terror. I had no idea the American people had elected you president and commander in chief.
The WSJ and the LA Times were given the story by the White House in order to take away the NYT's exclusive.
I wonder how many stories over the years have involved tracking financial records? How many people has the Times delved into, how many privacy rights trampled, in the name of news? No surprise to find that they reserve rights for themselves that they won't afford to those fighting to protect that very press freedom.
Ann Coulter said:
"What if, instead of passing information from the government's secret nuclear program at Los Alamos directly to Soviet agents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had printed those same secrets in a newsletter? Would they have skated away scot-free instead of being tried for espionage and sent to the death chamber?"
I think it's a question worth answering.
but even more ignorant is RandomJoe's assumption that only members of the Bush administration know any secrets and therefore are responsible for all leaks.
Sorry - it was just so easy.
First of all, my original comment was directed toward a statement that seemed to me to be suggesting that the Left had anything to leak. The implication was that the Left was conducting covert activities that might be leakable, and that seemed like nonsense to me, because the Left doesn't do anything and has no power.
If, however, the original comment was suggesting that the Left leaks the Right's activities, AND you equate the actions of individual underlings in the adminsitration with The Left, OR you can assume that those underlings are acting in accordance with some grand Left master plan, then you are correct and I am mistaken. My apologies for the misunderstanding and confusion.
Not to be argumentative, either, but it was a newspaper article. It's just my opinion, obviously, but I don't think it gave out enough information to be useful to anyone. It blew a whistle, it didn't describe the aerodynamics (fluid dynamics?) that make whistles work.
> It is also treasonous and against the law to disclose the information.
If so, then the government leakers should be prosecuted. The NYT, however, was just doing what papers do: getting readers by digging at the people in power. That's what sells.
The holistic aggregation and derivation of global money transfer trends was the key exposure. Joliphant is exactly right on this point. If you look at the original NYT article (which pains me to suggest), it is very elementary in its explanations and replete with diagrams, etc. This is a textbook, accumulated explanation they would not receive anywhere else.
A secondary point is; what's the value of the article? Who does this serve and what are the motivations? Those are important points that demand answers. If informed people in the U.S. knew this was occurring and legal, why would the NYT print it?
It is very simple to see this was mostly political and never considered the real and present danger to our safety. To pose this as a First Amendment issue was even more insulting. In tandem, that is almost unforgivable.
I was pretty civil in my post. If you disagree with what I say, fine, debate me on it. If you don't want to talk about it, fine, don't. If you think I'm stupid, fine, instruct me.
But don't just dismiss me as a "troll". That may make divergent viewpoints easier to deal with, but it's a lazy move.
That being: The Bush Administration controls all top secret info. You think this is "obvious, what with the NSA wiretapping thing and this latest thing."
Therefore, the Bush Administration leaked these programs to the NY times while at the same time disingenuously asking them not to publish anything about them. Yeah, I follow your logic now.
Please tell me how I can help being snide with what you provide.
I thought that was obvious, what with the whole NSA wiretapping thing and with this latest thing. Of COURSE the administration keeps things to itself and away from the opposing party. It's free to do so -- that's politics. The gov't is entirely Republican controlled, so the administration need let the opposition know only what it wants the opposition to know.
As was pointed out upthread, the "administration" is composed of literally thousands of career government civil "servants" who, by the nature of their jobs, have access to government secrets. When a new administration comes into power, do you really believe that they share "secrets" with only those few appointees they bring with them?
PLEASE!
Note to QueenOfCups; This is what I was talking about in our earlier discussion!
the Gov't has been leaking stuff during this whole war, why get so worked up now? Because the Iraqi Occupation isn't going well even after we got Zarqawi?
You don't like leakers, look to the top. I've always been a believer that people emulate their leader...
"Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said."
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm
So leak only when convienent?
...directed to me or to kentdj23? If you meant it for me, as I suspect you did, I'm still here because I find the discussions interesting. I can disagree with people here, just as I do with people on Kos, but still find the debate enlightening and sometimes even opinion-changing.
That's what debate is about. Being amongst a group of people who all share the same opinion may be more relaxing, but it's also boring and doesn't go anywhere.
On the other hand, if you didn't mean your comment for me, then I apologize.
depends on which case they are looking at.
Holistically, it is becoming increasingly apparent our next response to a terrorist attack will be internal damage assessments and finger pointing.
So leak only when convienent(sic)?
The left appears to only leak when it is inconvenient for Bush, regardless of whether or not it is inconvenient for the nation. The NY times then joyfully provides nationwide coverage for their leaks.
Are you aware that the President has the ultimate authority to declassify intelligence information? Can he leak what he has the authority to declassify? If he leaks it without his knowledge would that count?
Do you know who Norman Mineta is?
Have you looked up anything on Mary McCarthy yet?
You claim you want to learn, so do some homework. Then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion. The gaps in your knowledge (whether intentional or innocent) are currently too big.
I found a gem on DailyKos (I know, can you believe it?) which I posted earlier and which I am now embarrassed to admit I have ignored. For my benefit alone I now repeat it:
sigh (0 / 0)
Don't be distracted by idiots.
by devtrash on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 06:59:16 PM PDT
Joe, if you show up later having done some serious homework and posting other than obtuse comments I will apologize and try for an intelligent discussion. But I'm not holding my breath.
The Wall Street Journal and The LA Times should be taken to task just as much as The NY Times.
You are so right. Every Democrat/lefty in the CIA, FBI, NSA and every other government agency resigned the day Bush took over. How could I have forgotten that fact? </snide comment>
Have you possibly heard of Mary McCarthy? She and her ilk are the lefties who keep feeding our security information to the NY times and other reporters to attempt to damage President Bush. They do this even if their leaks damage our nation.
Do you really think that only the party in power is privy to national secrets. C'mon, I've read your other posts and know that in spite of your protest otherwise that you really don't need this spelled out and yes, you appear to be "trollish."
it would be ignorant to assume only Dems are leaking info. There are plenty of conservatives disguntled w/ the direction of the government.
Well, the fact that the Dems (and many Reps) claim that they were surprised to hear about the wiretapping and similar issues leads me to believe that yes, the administration can effectively keep such info to itself.
It apparently can't do it forever, though, because underlings in the administration for whatever reason eventually decide to leak the info. The reasons for that leaking are open to debate.
The disconnect between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying is that I don't think those leakers can or should be equated with "The Left". I see them as individuals acting on their conscience, misguided or not, to provide info they think the public should have.
My assumption, though, is that these leakers are moderate Republicans. Perhaps that's naive, but I'm operating under the assumption that Bush, like any president, chooses the people who work under him, and also sets guidelines for who works under those people. When dealing with top-secret info concerning the administration's plans, the guidelines are going to be even stricter, and so at a minimum he's going to choose people from his party, no?
Again, I'm operating on an assumption here, so I might be offbase. But I can't see Bush bringing a Dem into the mix in such things -- he just doesn't have to.
Yes, it was elementary, to the point that it didn't really say anything (to me, anyway) about how the mining was actually being performed.
It would have been damaging if the NYT had given out the actual algorithms being used, but it didn't -- it just said this was happening, was going through so and so banking consortium (which handles all transactions, anyway), and so on. Unless the terorists are idiots (and not all of them are), my bet is that they suspected something like that was going on anyway.
As for the value of the article, I don't think it was a big deal until a fuss started being made about it. But I suspect the NYT printed it for the same reason they print anything else: To get readers. What's an easy way to get readers? Dig up dirt on those in power. It happened with the Clintons; it happens with Bush. It's not political, it's just sensationalism.
Fanning the air and pointing to the dog does little good.
the NYT gave specific examples of who was caught and how it was done. That is textbook and yes, elementary. It is also treasonous and against the law to disclose the information. This is above and beyond what was in the public domain and unecessary.
What is even more damaging is the impact on financial institutions and their operations structure. Revealing this program will slow down the subpoena process and cost crucial investigatory time. Parties will now try to show they were dilligent by creating a paper trail. Their intent will be to show shareholders and other concerned parties they took every legal precaution. That is an unecessary and dangerous gamble with our security. All for political gain.
Go spill your disgusting drivel elsewhere please! Before we report you to the supreme commander and have you sent to the reeducation camp!!!
This blog is not the appropriate forum for moonbat talking points, nor to plug advertisements for your very own moonbat blog. Contribute substantively or get lost.
Yours,
Management
By now everyone knows the NYTimes broke the story of the Bush administration's secret investigation of potential terrorism financing everywhere by penetrating the most secret/secure banking records of most if not all of the world's major banks and financial institutions-- Not disputing the most obvious bankers everywhere in the world are rather upset to put it mildly and not to mention peeved world governments who might not like having their business secrets open to neocon snoopery....(more)
BANKING LINK & INSURGENT NOIR
www.rounder6.blogspot.com
Why are you stll here?
In the spirit of largesse, we're giving our trolls a chance to act like fine members of the community, and not to repeat lefty talking points that have been dealt with a dozen times before.
I'm therefore giving you your second warning. There will not be a third.
Thanks.
You raise good points to the other poster, but I'm curious about this statement:
> The left appears to only leak when it is inconvenient for Bush, regardless of whether or not it is inconvenient for the nation.
What does the left have to leak? They're not in power anywhere, so they don't have anything to leak, do they? The current administration is the one in charge and making all the decisions, so any leakable info would have to come from that end -- the Dems aren't involved. Am I misunderstanding your point?
That's an honest question, not an attempt to be trollish.
"Alexander the Great remarked that the peoples of Asia were slaves, because they had not learned how to pronounce the word `no'. Let that not be the epitaph of the English-speaking peoples..."
because the press may, by Divine Right as Saviors of Democracy, gain access to anything they want, however they want.
There is a clear - and, of course, utterly justified - double standard.
Just wasn't sure.