Anyway, let’s count the boons to the “public good” here, shall we: 1) reporting on the classified information leaked them, the Times’ editors were told, would jeopardize three ongoing investigations; 2) the program and its searches were clearly legal, a fact made clear to the editors, who were shown evidence to that effect; 3) administration officials and others made it clear to the editors that printing the leaked classified information would jeopardize not only the ongoing investigations, but would irreparably damage a program that had been demonstrably effective; 4) despite all this, the Times’ went with the story—an editorial decision that in fact jeopardized three investigations, “outed” a legal classified program, and rendered an effective program for thwarting terrorist planning and rolling up cells impotent. In addition, they created problems for our allies, who will likely be far more circumspect about helping the US with any future programs for fear of being exposed by leakers with ties to the intelligence community. And then they had the temerity to spill ink over their struggles with conscience—concluding, ultimately (and boy, here’s a shocker) that they owed it to the public to render useless the legal program that had actually been protecting them.
Which, while that certainly takes balls like casaba melons, is nevertheless still self-serving and repugnant rubbish that anyone with a bit of sense would dismiss as such.
There's apparently an investigation underway to find the leaker, and the American Spectator feels it's unlikely to be a current intelligence professional. Rather it's some former official with a grudge or score to settle, or perhaps an aspiration to fulfill. The whole episode has the smarm signature of someone like Richard Clarke. And strangely I have this irresistible urge to say "the late Richard Clarke", not because I think he's exactly dead, per se, or because I wish him so. But he seems to have transformed himself into some sort of wraith-like approximation of the human he used to be, once upon a time. Not someone one thinks of walking around in the sunlight.
Leaving that speculation aside, whoever the culprit is he/she/it must be someone whose ethical gears have been stripped, and is just grinding out what's left of its store of integrity into a greasy little pile in some darkened corner.
But what about Iran...or North Korea.......or hell Iraq????????????????????
Its always a good rule of thumb to dig around for upcomming book releases, especialy if its someone who is a former-(insert: intelligence, state, pundit or political) official. It's indeed a rare case when a big "scoop" comes out that a book doesn't follow within 1-3 months.
These things tend to be timed to maximize exposure for the upcoming release. We have seen it time and time again, Risen and Clarke are both notable examples. And pretty much every former Clintonista has had his or her turn leaking and then pushing out yet another Bushitler is evil book. Honestly, if anyone had sat down to read all of them, they would probably find that the same ghostwriter did all the work.
Its always a good rule of thumb to dig around for upcomming book releases, especialy if its someone who is a former-(insert: intelligence, state, pundit or political) official. It's indeed a rare case when a big "scoop" comes out that a book doesn't follow within 1-3 months.
These things tend to be timed to maximize exposure for the upcoming release. We have seen it time and time again, Risen and Clarke are both notable examples. And pretty much every former Clintonista has had his or her turn leaking and then pushing out yet another Bushitler is evil book. Honestly, if anyone had sat down to read all of them, they would probably find that the same ghostwriter did all the work.
I think I'll register www.timesleakers.com and setup a betting pool. That would be fun.
Gabriel, you have hit the right button. It is disgusting how the newspapers act as if these people are neutral observers.
The publication of classified info by the NYT is reprehensible. But I want to know why there are no leakers indicted for treason or violation of the officla secrets act or both? A couple of life sentences or death penalties would go a long way toward tightneneing up security leaks.
The public at large wouldn't accept a death penalty for this kind of leak. The leak would have to be linked directly to multiple verifiable deaths. I doubt even a life sentence could be obtained.
Case in point, Sandy Berger got off completely for stealing classified documents, notice how the media basically ignored his sentencing.
If the Fitzgerald inquiry is any indication of how future leak investigations will go, then I don't have much faith in any significant resolutions being obtained against the current crop of leakers. I'd equate it to the ICC and Milosevic.
PS. can a mod delete the double post above. Thanks.
Because the United States doesn’t have an Official Secrets Act, that’s a British law.
Sandy Berger should be breaking rocks at Leavenworth, as should the leaker(s) who blew the SWIFT monitoring program.
The Two-Timers are digging their own commercial graves, and as a rule any information that can be dug up should be fair game for publication. (Not saying it's right or smart to do so, but the First Amendment has costs as well as benefits; narcissistic idiots have to be protected too.)
I could admire a leaker who braved jail or worse to expose government malfeasance. That type of leaker would be a hero. But right now, the disincentive to leak is apparently asymptotic to zero. So anyone with a grudge or a gripe can leak and watch safely from the sidelines as our elected officials get jerked around by an (until now) unchecked press.
Government can and should go after the leakers. Those of us on the outside can cancel subscriptions, cancel ad buys, and/or petion advertisers to spend their ad dollars elsewhere.
In the NYT's initial defense of the publication, they described the government's efforts to convince them not to publish "halfhearted". We now see how big a lie that is, but I do wonder what the NYT considers more than halfhearted. Prosecution of the Times, maybe?
I deeply suspect the Times never had any intention of being persuaded not to publish but played that card to extract more information on not just this story but related subjects for future publication.
Treason is tough to prove, and has a very specific delineation (and even requires a certain number of witnesses). Frankly, I'd be satisfied if the person involved were barred from ever obtaining public employment or contracts. I suspect such a ruling would be devastating to whoever it is. But a little jail time would be nice as well.
The big mistake in dealing with this sort of thing was actually the failure of the Bush administration to even attempt to convince the nation that we are really at war, by asking for a few sacrifices (as opposed to just going out to buy a new car at 0% interest). As a result even if people tend to know that we're at war intellectually, there's nothing like the kind of commitment that went along with prior efforts to stop sedition during war time.
Will do.
Dusty: In the NYT's initial defense of the publication, they described the government's efforts to convince them not to publish "halfhearted". We now see how big a lie that is, but I do wonder what the NYT considers more than halfhearted.
How do we know it's a lie? Because Tony Snow said so?
That looks to me like a he-said-she-said situation. Without any external evidence, there's no reason to believe one party over the other.
Well Mitch, It wasn't Tony Snow, the Press Secretary that made that called the NYT on their characterization it was Secretary John Snow, the Treasury Department Secretary. According to his letter
So no it is not he-said-she-said.
Smokeandashes - Not Tony Snow. John Snow. My fingers were leading a life of their own.
How is this not a he-said-she-said? Do we have corroboration from the people he names saying they met with the Times?
Look, I actually find John Snow's statement somewhat credible. The New York Times doesn't havea lot of credibility with me at this point as an investigative reporting body, not after the last seven years of history starting with Wen Ho Lee.
But I'm not simply willing to sit here and say, "The Bush Administration says it's not so and that's good enough me--damn that filthy, lyin' Times?"
Hmmm...
"One of the issues that came up in the question and answer discussion with Evans [Fictional name;journalist] concerned the "Stanleyville massacre" in the Congo the year before. There had been a great deal of unrest in the former Belgian Congo (no Zaire) since the Belgians had withdrawn in 1960, including coups, assasinations, and a U.N. peacekeeping force. A dissident group had rounded up nuns, priests, and missionaries, and a number of other foreigners, both women and children, and held them hostage in Stanleyville (now Kisangani). This group had threatened to kill all of them and appeared to be quite willing to carry out that threat.
An exectutive decision was made to attempt a parachute drop on Stanleyville to try to save these people. The United States was going to furnish the C-130s for the airlift; Belgian paratroopers were to go in and bring out the hostages. This operation was to be staged from tiny Ascension Island in the South Atlantic. The need for secrecy was paramount - the lives of the hostages were at stake, and parachute operations, which are risky under any circumstance, are downright suicidal when your enemy knows you're coming. However, a New York Times reporter got wind of the operation, filed his story, and the Times printed it. The crucial element of surprise was removed, but the paratroopers went in anyway. Though they saved the majority of the people, many died needlessly.
I asked Evans, "Why? Considering the humanitarian purpose of the airdrop, considering the need for surprise, why on earth didn't the journalist hold his story at least until the planes had lifted off? Even if he didn't, why didn't the editorial board of the paper sit on the story until everyone was out safely?"
Evans's smug and unprincipled answer was, "Well, he had to feed his wife and children.
That cynical response forever fixed in my mind the lack of accountability and rank opportunism that typifies so many journalists. Responsibility is not part of the profession anymore, if it ever was. That truth was probably the most important thing that I got out of the midcareer course. Later in my career, I thought back from time to time to that session with Evans, especially during the war with the Sandinistas and during Iran-contra, when journalists started sounding off about the lack of "ethic" and lack of "morality" in the CIA, especially of the Clandestine Service"
Clarridge, Duane R. and Digby Diehl. "A Spy for All Seasons." New York: Scribner, 1997: 102
... despite all this, the Times’ went with the story—an editorial decision that in fact jeopardized three investigations, “outed” a legal classified program, and rendered an effective program for thwarting terrorist planning and rolling up cells impotent
Do we know if this program was effective? Do we have any names of terrorists caught in this program, or funding schemes that were prevented? Or is this just an assumption based on what the administration has said? (I'm assuming the later, because i have not heard evidence of the former)
Here's where it would be really nice to have an oversight body, that it could not only verify that the program was being used correctly, but also to determine if a program is successful, efficient and cost-effective.
"United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence."
"United States Senate Committee on Intelligence."
Riduan Isamuddin, planner of the Bali bombings and his crew do anything for ya?
"Richard Newcomb , the head of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control at the time, later publicly credited the president for enabling US law enforcement and intelligence agencies to nab suspected terrorists, including followers of ``Hambali, " Al Qaeda's leader in Southeast Asia. The New York Times report said Hambali's capture in 2003 came with the aid of information gleaned from SWIFT."
Boston Globe
It would seem poetic justice if the first terrorist incident after this treasonous act was the destruction of the NYT offices by a bomb.
However, one of the definitions of treason is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". As there is no defined enemy, it might be a little difficult to make this one stick as a matter of law.
Does the USA, or New York State, have an equivalent to the UK offence of "obstructing the police in the course of their duty"?
Get a grip!
If you still labor under the fantasy that the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal divulged "classified information" that put U.S. lives at risk or hampered our ability to track terrorist financial assets, you are willfully ignorant or have been living in a sensory isolation tank!
See more here
And then try and refute all 5 points.
Another quote:
Only people trading clam shells for coconuts would have been unaware that any financial transaction moving through the international financial system--which includes SWIFT, FedWire, and CHIPS—was being scrutinized by the United States Government
First person who smears LJ, rather than refuting the facts he points to, gets the Cookie Hack Award!
Ah Jeeze...
The spin just keeps coming from all sides.
"Hypocrisy rules," there is no point in "debunking" any of the five points: you'll note that those points mostly focus on the WHY of the government tracking international transactions. Where they address the HOW, they do so only in the most general of terms.
The LAT, on the other hand, released specifics. This is information which helps criminals and terrorist reduce the risks of money laundering. It's the difference between admitting to intelligence gathering (duh) on the one hand, and telling the world HOW we do it on the other.
And the question is... why did they feel the need to do that? Was the activity illegal? Did it represent an abuse of authority? Had Congress failed to exercise effective oversight?
I pretty much guessed the answer before I even read it: just one more ingenious Rovian plot to keep the Republicans in power. Now the editors of the LA Times, much like Dan Rather of CBS have been sucked in by the Sith himself.
Rove's getting that Jedi mind trick thing down pretty good.
Sorry. That entire rant was a lie from start to finish. And a poor one at that.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Honestly man, Larry Johnson? Yeah he doesn't have an axe to grind, he hasn't exposed himself as willing to say anything as long as it hurts Bush.
Come back again when you have someone who isn't so totally compromised.
Maybe next time you can cite Cindy Sheehan or Joe Wilson.
In comment #20, hypocrisyrules offered ex-intelligence official Larry Johnson's defense of the Times' revelations of the Swift program at TalkingPointsMemo Cafe, a prominent liberal blog.
I'd urge readers to click on the link. Compare--for yourself--Johnson's defense and Jeff Goldstein's four-part charge (in the body of the post here).
Johnson's sole contention is that the secrets that the NYT and LAT revealed weren't actually secrets.
Really?
Johnson quotes from testimony given at three Congressional hearings to drive home his Swift-wasn't-secret assertion. His links:
I searched each of these lengthy html documents with the string "Swift." Hey, you can try it for yourself!
Though you might already have a good idea of what you'll find.
[Padding added by editor to move the url back enough so that it doesn't break the home page] From a comment at Professor Bainbridge's blog:
Re-reading the NYT, LAT, and WSJ articles from 6/22/06 to 6/24/06 and trying to imagine myself in the role of an Al-Qaida counter-espionage officer, I am struck by how incredibly valuable each of the articles is. They are even more useful when considered together. This is the “mosaic” argument, that an innocent secret becomes the keystone in a puzzle for the enemy. These articles present complementary and detailed portraits of the inner workings of the West’s best and most extensive program to detect terror-related transfers of money.
One of the biggest intelligence challenges is in delineating the extent of the problem; Rumsfeld’s glib but very true categorizations of knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns comes to mind. The articles’ advantages to Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations includes:
Again, the conclusion of damage is far outweighing the evidence for such.
Any person with half a brain would have been aware that tracking of finances was happening, and that there were several programs in place for this. Because one is named, doesn't suddenly "reveal" any operational information.
Not to mention the outrage on leaks is selective. There was information leaked today in the NY Daily News story. And not much reaction about the leak.
"Disclosure of the bomb plot coincided with the one-year anniversary of a terrorist bomb attack on London subways and a bus that killed 52 and injured about 700. Authorities said they hadn't intended to release details about the plot this early and that whoever leaked the information had compromised the FBI's relationship with some foreign intelligence services.
The person who leaked the details is clearly someone who doesn't understand the fragility of international relations,'' Mershon said. "We've had a number of uncomfortable questions and some upsetment (sic) with these foreign intelligence services that had been working with us on a daily basis.''"
But OF COURSE.
So, to say it again - this information has been in the public domain before
It's the hypocrisy that is amazing, the pick and choosing of what the latest "outrage" is.
At any rate, you guys. What SPECIFICALLY - on an operational level - what operational activity, what act, was revealed that will NOW be avoided by terrorists, that wasn't previously?
"Again?"
If you wished to be honest, you'd at least acknowledge that you are now shifting your thesis from: 1) declaring allegations of classified information revealed to be a "fantasy," to 2) claiming that this revelation has caused no damage.
(No "again" necessary.)
Of the latter, reasonable people can only ask, "how do you know?"
How do you measure how many suspicious transfers WOULD HAVE BEEN intercepted in the near and far future term had the details of this program NOT been divulged? I'd suggest that neither you nor I can measure that, so we have to fall back on common sense and the program's historical track record to determine what might have been lost.
I once shared your assumption that anybody with common sense would just assume that their transfers were being tracked anyways. Upon further reflection and study, I realize that for a criminal or terrorist, who IS going to launder money anyways, the notion that he is being watched is not a certainty, but a risk that he seeks to minimize.
That's just a little bit easier now, isn't it?
Was it worth it HR? Have your civil liberties been insured? Has the evil Bush been banished back to Mordor, and his dark, Rovian minions swept from Middle Earth forever?
hypocrisyrules #25:
I addressed most of the points you raise in #25 in comments #23 and #24. Check the links.
So we have to balance your pseudonymous opinion on the web against the actual operational mistakes made by AQ financiers that led to Hambali's arrest. And the other terrorists the program has netted.* And developing evidence that a number of other, active investigations were compromised by the NYT's decision to publish.
Okay, I've thought about this and come to a conclusion. That wasn't hard.
How selective? Are you sure?
Here's something to consider: some readers follow URLs and read the linked story. Among the quotes in that Boston Globe (owned by NYT) story, Terrorist funds-tracking no secret, some say
The Globe article also quotes blogger and financial expert Victor Comras on a paragraph on Swift in a 2002 UN report. Read Comras and that paragraph here.
hypocrisyrules: you've simply offered Talking Points on the Swift Story, some more than once. As far as I'm concerned, from this point on the onus is on you to demonstrate that your posts are worth the effort of a serious response.
*--that's a link to comment #23 above.
AMAC,
At least you put coherent sentences together, and an argument together, that I can respect.
Color me unconvinced - I will say that you do have an argument here - it still isn't cut and dry as it is being made out to be. I care enough about the truth of things that I see where you are coming from.
But to take it a issue at a time.
"Who forgot to tell the terrorists the program has netted?"
It is great that a terrorist was netted - all to the good. But it is a leap to think that operationally, this terrorists wouldn't have done what he was doing, because - again - the information was already out there. There is a leap there, as this is an unprovable assumption. It is a similar leap to if I say that Bush, by ignoring Al Queda in the first 9 months, "caused" the attack on 9-11. (I'm of the opinion had Clinton still been president, the attack would have been found and foiled. And I trust both Richard Clarke and Randy Beers on this issue, of how Bush ignored Al-Queda, when it would have made a difference.)
"the subjects now know" - that is spin by Treasury officials. And Bush officials have blown any type of respect for what comes out of their mouths to me. Everything is political to these guys, including that human output is causing global warming, and the fact that this administration has been the most hostile to science EVER.
Still, I appreciate the marshalling together of an argument.
It's a shame you waste your skills aligning with these fools who shout TREASON.
Ah well - if you choose to remain blind, choose to "confront" issues that put you in league with people that are shouting TREASON to the rooftops, that's your choice. You are making idiotic choices, but go ahead, have a party.
Leaks that favor Bush - good. Leaks that embarass Bush - bad.
hypocrisyrules #28:
Thank you, for the kind words and amusing straw men both.
You might be interested in the arguments brought up in this Professor Bainbridge thread. Some of the points I make there, you've heard before; see also the arguments raised (on 'your' side) by Boonton, and the link to the paper on the Stanley Johnston/Midway?JN-25 case by Fred Vultee. That case's particulars raise a lot of interesting points relevant to the current debate.
"...Leaks that favor Bush - good. Leaks that embarass Bush - bad...."
LOL.
HR -- I would like to simply point out the uselessness of trying to argue with people that you have pre-judged to be stupid, lying, simple-minded or hypocrites.
As for me, I was very concerned when I thought a CIA officer's name was leaked by the administration and was outraged. Turns out that didn't happen the way it was advertised. I am much more cocerned about the leaks of operational intelligence matters because I believe these leaks do greater harm.
I've already heard the "everybody does it" and the "what does it hurt" argument ad infinitum under that last president, old whatshisname. Could we at least get a little new material?
"(I'm of the opinion had Clinton still been president, the attack would have been found and foiled. And I trust both Richard Clarke and Randy Beers on this issue, of how Bush ignored Al-Queda, when it would have made a difference.)"
And what, pray tell, informs that opinion? Really, I'm curious.
A number of NYT apologists (who all seem to be anti-defense for some reason) keep pushing a demand that harm, as a consequence of the SWIFT disclosure, be absolutely proved.
[Aside: Since I can't include the link to the TigerHawk post that coined the term "anti-defense" due to the ban on you-know-which blogging domain, you can just google "TigerHawk and Nomenclature" to read it.]
Apart from the obvious criticism that those who make such demands do so without the slightest legitimacy, I'd like to make a couple of points, but the second is far more important than the first. We'll see which one gets attention from these folks:
1. Any harm is likely to be, and remain, unknown to us for some time since the circumstances surrounding it would likely be classified, for the same very good reason that the SWIFT program itself was classified.
2. But the real issue doesn't have to do with whether we can prove harm, because that's barring the barn door after the horses have skedaddled. Plus the demand assumes that this wrangle, if legitimate now, ought to follow every single disclosure of classified information, while there are actually no penalties for those who caused the harm, whether proved or not.
And the point is this, whether or not I can prove harm isn't what keeps me up at night. Whether there was harm, or will be harm at the next disclosure, causes me to lose sleep. And it ought to cause the Times apologists to lose sleep too. More to the point, it ought to cause the Times editorial staff to lose as much sleep as the intelligence operatives running the program. The fact that it doesn't is the real problem.
If there were some consistent way to impose penalties on leakers and those who exploit the leaks should harm be proved at a later date I'd sleep a great deal easier. Because if that were the case then at least Keller would have some incentive to wise up, and learn something about the strategy behind these operations and how they work. As the situation is now, neither he nor anyone else at the Times is competent to judge whether harm will occur or not.
The conversation is continuing on a more recent thread, Demosophist's More on the SWIFT Disclosure, as of July 9 at 4am.
#22 -- Gabriel Chapman wins the Cookie Hack award, after 3 hours and 33 minutes!
If there were some consistent way to impose penalties on leakers and those who exploit the leaks should harm be proved at a later date I'd sleep a great deal easier.
That reminds me of a story my old uncle told me. He wanted to be a doctor, and then he joined the army for WWII. He became some sort of medical corpsman and he had some contact with army doctors.
And they had a problem. They had come up with new approaches to burn victims that saved a lot of lives. But the ruling came down that they couldn't use them, they had to use the old methods that didn't work nearly as well. And it wasn't a blanket prohibition. The way it worked was that if they used the new procedures and the man lived, then nothing happened. But if they used the new procedures and the man died they'd be courtmartialed.