Quote from hapaboy:
Nik & Ricter,
So let me ask you this: If we were fighting a war you thought was justified, would you still feel the same way if the NY Times was publishing articles about the government's efforts to track and capture the enemy?
Would you have approved of such articles being written during WW II, for example?
Hi Hap
I'd be happy to give you my thoughts on this matter. But first I'd like to throw a general question out there. How many who have posted in this thread or who are following it have actually read the article in question?
What seems to have happened is this. The reporters were investigating this story and were ready to go to press and asked the administration for a comment, or at least told them 'this is what we have and we are going to go with it'. The administration asked them not to go with it, but the NYT said 'we're going ahead'. At that point Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, was forced to comment.
Now why did they NYT decide to go with the publication of this article? Well, the NYT describes this program as a 'significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records' in that it did not rely on individual warrants to examine specific transactions, 'instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas'.
Let's consider the next statement in the article:
" 'The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling,' said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable"
I admit this is a little disingenuous on the part of the authors. The wording is manipulative; if a former counterterrorism official is making the pronouncement, then it must be valid! This official, who is expressing this idea that the program might be troubling, 'considers the program valuable'. This is pretty much lip service. Throughout the article, the authors make reference to 'highly placed officials' and 'senior authorities' who are expressing doubts about the legality of this intelligence gathering program.
'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'.
I like that 'some'..
The authors repeatedly state that concerns were voiced from within the current administration about the ramifications of this program. So they're trying to paint this as a cover-up in the making. They go on to say that Swift officials, who at first (immediately post 9/11) were cooperative, began to express concerns over legal liabilities. The privacy laws applying to international transactions are described as 'murky'.
"Several people familiar with the Swift program said they believed that they were exploiting a ''gray area'' in the law and that a case could be made for restricting the government's access to the records on Fourth Amendment and statutory grounds. 'There was always concern about this program,' a former official said".
There is a
lot of innuendo in this article. Having said that, my sense of it is that it is informed by the same fears engendered by the current administration's somewhat cavalier attitude towards privacy issues in particular, as reflected by the NSA deal that preceded this. This all started at the UN, when the US said that it was going to act unilaterally whether it had UN approval or not, and other countries could either like it or lump it. Gitmo is an example of the same kind of thing. I have heard people say that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. That is a dangerous simplification. I am not going to bother trying to summarize the arguments for protection from illegal surveillance. If you do not agree with these laws, you are not a libertarian. Fine.
My big question about this article is this -
what in the hell is the big deal here? Does anyone seriously think that the terrorists do not know that if they send money through the international banking system, the US authorities may see the transaction? This whole idea that Osama Bin Laden read this article and was able to fine tune his plans, thus making it easier for him to kill Americans, is baloney, imo. There is nothing in this article that would provide a terrorist with anything!! It is a serious mistake to underestimate one's enemies. Does anyone really believe that these terrorists do not have access to wealthy people and entities who know about the swift system and can advise them about the possibility that their transactions will be surveilled? Is not Osama himself a product of a wealthy Saudi business family? Does anyone seriously believe that he is/was unaware that international money transfers are cleared through central agencies, and that post 9/11, the U.S. would be surveilling every possible source for information?
Furthermore, let us take the example of a terrorist who was not aware that international money transfers are cleared through the SWIFT system. How many of this type are using international banking to move money around the globe? To me it is almost impossible that anyone this unsophisticated wouldn't't be using the 'hawala' (hope I have that right) system of money transfer.
Bottom line is this. One member here posted a picture of the grotesquely burned bodies lying in the debris of a terrorist attack, and said 'This is what the liberals and NYT are shooting for' or something like that. I think that kind of statement is more irresponsible than the NYT actions here. The NYT evidently balanced the potential damage to U.S. counterterrorism efforts with the probative value of exposing another effort on the part of the Bush administration that may push the boundaries of what is legal. I am beginning to understand something. The hard right here at ET are not representative of the majority right in the USA. I can't believe that there aren't others on the right who would agree that they do not want their privacy intruded upon, and they do not want
any government to operate outside the boundaries defined by the right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted surveillance.
This article was about the NYT's ongoing effort to undermine the administration by pointing out their alleged abrogation of the rights of citizens. To say that they are working hand in hand with the terrorists and the Dems to destroy the country... well, I am not going to bother with my description of that, since you asked me a polite question.
Is all this playing politics? Is the main motivation of the NYT to depose the Republicans, so that their Dem friends can win the next election? If this is the case, it is no worse than the same kind of politicking we see from the right. I don�t believe that either party has the moral high ground when it comes to playing politics. It's all part of the game.
The final problem is this - is the U.S. at war right now? There is no consensus in this and that is why it doesn't really matter what I think about whether this would be treasonous if the U.S. were at war. So regarding your question about what I would think if we were at war well, it's a tough question. I don't see this as a war of sovereign against sovereign in the old sense (WWII). Maybe in the case of WWII this would be treasonous but I highly doubt that anything like this would have been published at that time. This is a war of western values vs. Muslim ones. Certainly there is no question in my mind that this is not even remotely treasonous in its present context and I think the (imo) over-reaction we are seeing is a result of the fact that the 'war in Iraq' is going badly, for the current administration and for the young Americans who are dying as a result of our presence there.
