Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The Fifth Column Fourth Estate

Ah, our cherished freedoms. Our rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of our own happiness. The right to print recklessly and irresponsibly whatever we can make a controversy over in pursuit of profit. That's America salad.

If you've read another blog this week - any other blog, really - you'll already be familiar with the latest act of treason conscientious patriotism that the New York Times has committed against us performed on our behalf in detailing the covert Terrorist Finance Tracking Program that banking thing that everyone knew about anyway, except for the people who didn't. I don't really have an opinion that differs from that of Tony Snow (except that I'd like to see their WH press pool credentials yanked), but I'd just like to spend a few pixels making sure you haven't missed the significant opinions of John Snow and Lt. Tom Cotton, because I'm sure you haven't missed Bill Keller's take on it.

From Treasury Secretary Snow:

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror.

Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury


And Lt. Cotton:

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,

Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq

I hope so too, Tom.

In other first amendment news this week, the Senate upheld the Supreme court's delusion decision that setting things on fire is speech, and is thus constitutionally protected.

So if I set the Gray Lady on fire, is that protected, dutiful, conscientious objection, or is it simply self-defense?

5 Comments:

Blogger John said...

I still am waiting for someone to point out exactly what the NYT revealed that wasn't easily obtainable by a number of other sources -- namely from the mouths of government officials themselves, including the president, who have been speaking about going after terrorists via financial means since early days after 9/11.

An economist article even speaks about the adaptation of terrorists to get around the new banking issues back in October, 2005.

Hell, a report to the U.N. security council included even more detailed information four years ago.

Next we'll get to hear everyone shouting "TREASON!" in response to how the New York Daily News and Guardian Unlimited disclosed that government officials themselves disclosed their practice of monitoring of internet chat rooms to thwart terrorism :/

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the NYT should just print anything without regard. In this case, it may have been prudent to exercise restraint in how the story was told. On the other hand, all this commentary just sounds like a bunch of rabble-rousing by conservatives because a liberal publication took their own, 5-year-old story and twisted it into a negative light.

We must be getting close to an election year.

4:06 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Actually, you're not still waiting. I answered this when we talked about a week ago, but since I dearly love repeating myself...

I'll recall to your attention that the exact mechanism by which transactions were monitored wasn't known. They knew that sometimes money got traced from point A to point B, but they didn't know that over 2200 financial institutions around the world participating in SWIFT to move money internationally would be exposing multiple types of transactions. That's the difference between "There will be DWI checkpoints in effect this Friday", and "There will be checkpoints at Main & 3rd, Stevens & Lafeyette, and a roving point moving east along Kings Highway." Even if a couple drunks find out and blab it to a whole bar, that doesn't negate the usefulness of the checkpoints. That SWIFT piece of information alone probably removes just about any value that the program might have had.

And as for the shabby semblance of a defense that is "but information like this or worse was in lots of other places", let me point out that none of those places is the New York Times. Besides the fact that all of the terrorists who read The Economist, comb the U.S. Treasury dept's web site, and keep up with independant reports to the UN Security Council could dance together on the head of a pin, anything featured in the Times has the characteristic of being certain to become universally common knowledge in short order. In which one of those other sources is this also true?

Now, since I've answered this twice, maybe you'll be good enough to answer a couple questions for me. Why is it that the Times has such a raging hard-on to run revealing profiles on all of our efforts to engage the GWoT, but we never find damaging information about al-Qaeda's programs on it's front page? Do you think we might look forward to an expose that endangers terrorists instead of Americans soon?

I'll even offer you alternate questions: if it really wouldn't matter that the NYT ran this info because all of the terrorists (presumably including ones this program led us to) already knew everything about it (even though the Times itself characterized it as secret multiple times, as well as conceding that it's classified) so it's useless anyway, why did so many people invest so much of their time trying to pursuede the Times not to run it? Perhaps they're burdened with free time and odd hobbies, like pointless harassment of newspaper editors?

5:51 PM  
Blogger John said...

No, I'm still waiting. After doing more research than I wanted to about the subject, what you stated does not convince me that it was anything terrorists did not already know or at least think might be going on.

I wasn't saying that the economist article was revealing information. I pointed it out because it talks specifically about about how terrorists have known of the financial tracking since at least October 2005, and have been adapting by putting their money into assets and hard cash rather than financial institutions.

"Indeed, the terrorists have shown an ability to keep changing their money flows. 'The bad guys are definitely getting smarter,' says a European expert on financial crime. 'The banking system is so well patrolled they're resorting to more primitive means.' Counter-terror experts say some groups have simply switched to using more cash, slipping across borders undetected. Authorities say they recognize the changing money flows, but cutting them off is no simple matter, particularly in cash-based economies with loose border controls."

You're right about the New York Times being readily available, but it's also worth noting that some of those sources I listed are transcripts of speeches and hearings that were probably as accessible as C-SPAN and not just buried on a web site.

"Why is it that the Times has such a raging hard-on to run revealing profiles on all of our efforts to engage the GWoT, but we never find damaging information about al-Qaeda's programs on it's front page? Do you think we might look forward to an expose that endangers terrorists instead of Americans soon?"

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're talking like the NYT has some sort of state-sponsored budget and the people and skills to infiltrate Al Qaeda with Gary-esque talent and gather intelligence. If inside information about Al Qaeda came to the NYT from almost two dozen people like this, we would have long since won the unwinnable war on terror. Al Qaeda doesn't "leak" information to the NYT, and to get the information you refer to by other means would require them to step completely out of bounds.

"I'll even offer you alternate questions: if it really wouldn't matter that the NYT ran this info because all of the terrorists (presumably including ones this program led us to) already knew everything about it (even though the Times itself characterized it as secret multiple times, as well as conceding that it's classified) so it's useless anyway, why did so many people invest so much of their time trying to pursuede the Times not to run it?"

Who invested so much time trying to persuade the Times not to run it? First time I've heard that, and can't answer without more detail.

I'd be willing to bet though that the Times included the words "secret" and "classified" as sensationalism. The whole story begins with "THEY ARE SPYING ON YOU!!!!" and follows up with a helping of "GEORGE BUSH IS DOING ALL KINDS OF THINGS WITHOUT PERMISSION!!!!" It feels like the entire thing was meant to evoke a tin-foil-hat response.

Which brings me to the question that everyone seems to be ignoring:

If TWENTY current and former government officials fully knowledgeable about the policy brought it to the Times' attention because of concerns of abuse and distrust of authority, don't you think it's something that should be brought to everyone's attention?

10:08 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

After doing more research than I wanted to about the subject, what you stated does not convince me that it was anything terrorists did not already know or at least think might be going on.

First, do you understand that "terrorists" is not a monolithic group with comprehensive top-down communication like, say, the mob? "Terrorists" is not the same as "all terrorists", or even "many terrorists"; we're talking about disparate and and disassociated groups of individuals all over the world, not a family in New York. What Hakmed Muhammed, or Kareem Muhammed, or Shecky Muhammed (and other individuals with no clear links identifiable by the mainstream media between them) knows is not neccessarily known by any others, anywhere. When one terrorist or one group of terrorists or ten groups learn something or have an idea, a memo does not go out to all terrorists everywhere to insure that everyone's up to speed. Even al Qaeda, just one group among many, has loosely organized leadership at best and does not send out a newsletter featuring "Seyed's Surveillance Suspicions and Tips" to a card-carrying membership.

In short, I don't care what "terrorists" know or do, because of the impossibility of such a blanket statement being true. You can tell me that terrorists aren't using financial institutions, but that's clearly a crock of crap. "All terrorists" did not get that memo, as the program's successes indicate. Well, not until the largest and most influential (and internationally circulated) newspaper in America undertook to compile the info and send out that memo for them, that is.

You're right about the New York Times being readily available, but it's also worth noting that some of those sources I listed are transcripts of speeches and hearings that were probably as accessible as C-SPAN and not just buried on a web site.

But yet somehow the Bali bombing's planner didn't catch it on C-SPAN. To a guy in Indonesia, that may as well have been written on a matchbook cover somewhere in Poughkeepsie. This program got him; had al-Timezeera run this article in 2003, I don't think it would have.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're talking like the NYT has some sort of state-sponsored budget and the people and skills to infiltrate Al Qaeda with Gary-esque talent and gather intelligence.

You're telling me that the NYT doesn't know anything about guns or jets, right? The Guardian doesn't have a state-sponsored budget, but yet Robert Fisk got an interview with bin Laden himself. French reporters ran around with terrorists and even took video of them shooting down a DHL jet. Giuliana Sgrena had no trouble finding terrorists to pal around with. Bottom line: if the Times took an interest, they could. They don't have any interest. They'd rather expose every conceivable effort against terrorism we make. I just wish that unmarked combatants... er, New York Times journalists were half as concerned with the protection of me as they are with the protection of terrorists.

Who invested so much time trying to persuade the Times not to run it? First time I've heard that, and can't answer without more detail.

Well, not to suggest anything so drastic as R'ing TFA, but you would have heard this before if you'd read paragraphs 2-5 of the John Snow letter quoted in the original post. You would also have heard it if you'd read Bill Keller's response to criticisms of the original article (linked above), which Snow was responding to, or if you'd read the original NYT article itself which I linked above (and am linking again right here), particularly:

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."


Just how much research is 'more than I wanted to', anyway? Skimming the first paragraph of my post?

I'd be willing to bet though that the Times included the words "secret" and "classified" as sensationalism. The whole story begins with "THEY ARE SPYING ON YOU!!!!" and follows up with a helping of "GEORGE BUSH IS DOING ALL KINDS OF THINGS WITHOUT PERMISSION!!!!" It feels like the entire thing was meant to evoke a tin-foil-hat response.

+2 for observation there. That's precisely what it was written for, and for that objective they took it upon themselves to sacrifice whatever value the program still had. "In the public interest", of course. As if not getting gassed or blown to meaty shreds isn't in the public interest...

If TWENTY current and former government officials fully knowledgeable about the policy brought it to the Times' attention because of concerns of abuse and distrust of authority, don't you think it's something that should be brought to everyone's attention?

No. Not even if it were true. From the original article:

Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.

"Discussed" != "brought it to the Times' attention". I'd bet anything you like that the majority were people that the Times sought out and got them to say something. A portion of the less than 20 people, some of whom are industry executives and not government officials, seem to have misgivings about congress not instituting intelligence programs. As per usual, I think they need to be reminded that it's not their fricking job. Members of congress were briefed (I take this to mean intelligence committee members, and maybe finance committee), there were no objections filed, and if anyone had serious grievances about the program — I mean legitimate ones, not the fact that congress doesn't have the program in its mitts — there are channels to rectify them which do not involve the New York Times.

Incidentally, once again I'm sure you're welcome.

7:23 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

And one point maybe I failed to make -

You're right about the New York Times being readily available

It isn't only that it's readily available. It's the New York Times. It sets the news agenda for the country - whatever they decide is newsworthy will be reported by other media outlets across the country. This is what I mean by calling it the nation's most influential paper.

Furthermore, whatever is reported across the nation here is likely to be picked up as international news abroad. This story, having a prominent international component, was guaranteed to become covered worldwide before it was ever inked. Keller et al. knew they weren't just compiling this info for New Yorkers, or even Americans - they knew it would get international coverage.

7:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home