The 'Bush Spied Privacy Died' Hysterics At The NYT Are Back (UPDATED)

 

Cross posted @ NewsBusters

Well that didn't take long. The dynamic duo who blew the cover of the NSA surveillance program designed to monitor who is co-operating with al-Qaeda, is back in full force. Eric Lichtblau and James Risen of the inimitable New York Times, the newspaper for the misinformed, are on the war path again. The NYT declined a White House request last night not to publish a story about the Government's legal inspection of monies flowing in and out of the country post 9/11.

Curiously for some of the unhinged, the Administration officials were concerned that news reports of the program would diminish its effectiveness and could harm overall national security, but that minor detail would never worry the famous paper of ill repute. Also words like "classified anti-terrorist program" are not a deterrent

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

What exactly constitutes "Government secrets" nowadays. Absolutely everything is out in the open, I have no idea how any covert operations or classified programs can be carried out anymore. With the likes of the NYT and the L.A. Times revealing to all and sundry classified information, the terrorists don't need any help from their own, when they are getting plenty directly from us.

From Michelle Malkin: The NYTimes has in-house produced video showcasing Licthblau as he "reveals a secret Bush administration program to access to financial records."

Its sister, the LA Times immediately jumped on the bandwagon, tearfully issuing a statement that it was a tough decision to make, and of course worrying that it is

shown that there are adequate safeguards in these programs to give American citizens confidence that information that should remain private is being protected."[...]

Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the [L.A.] reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview."They were quite vigorous, they were quite energetic. They made a very strong case," he said.[...]

"Police agencies and prosecutors get warrants all the time to search suspects' houses, and we don't write stories about that," he said. "This is different. This is new. And this is a process that has been developed that does not involve getting a specific warrant. It's a new and unfamiliar process."

Patterico is absolutely furious, and is waging war against his "favorite" tabloid: "Eric Lichtblau, James Risen, and Bill Keller decided, in their infinite wisdom, that the program was too much of a concern to allow to continue, it had some extraordinary successes":

Among the [program’s] successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said.

In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said.

The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, prosecutors said.

It is transparent that these two newspapers are out on the loose, motivated only by a combination of greed and Bush hatred, reaching dizzying new heights in journalistic and civic contempt, for the traditions of our nation and their once proud heritage. It seems that they really do hate the President more than they fear al-Qaeda, relentlessly working for the enemy's detestable cause. Keep telling yourself that they are protecting your civil liberties. "We are a transparent nation". Yeah right.

And finally, they belong in jail...there...I said it, I feel better now.

Scott Johnson agrees:

For my attempt to address the legal issues related to the Times's conduct, see the Standard column "Exposure," and for Gabriel Schoenfeld's, see his Commentary article "Has the New York Times violated the Espionage Act?" It is unfortunately past time for the Bush administration to enforce the laws of the United States against the New York Times. The Times and its likeminded media colleagues will undoubtedly continue to undermine and betray the national security of the United States until they are taught that they are subject to the same laws that govern the conduct of ordinary citizens, or until an enraged citizenry decides, like Bill Keller, to take the law into its own hands and express its disagreement some other way.

Let's see if Hugh Hewitt has any luck getting an interview with Bill Keller.

UPDATE I: The Tony Snow video. Longer video excerpt here. Don't miss reading Andy McCarthy's 'Media's War Against The War' (h/t Allah)

UPDATE II JUNE 24th: Heather MacDonald @ The Weekly Standard:

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.

UPDATE III: Can the Attorney General prosecute The Times? We sure hope so. Gabriel Schoenfeld has the so called Comint statute in mind.

Comments

[Sandy P]

How can this administration choose to give up Plame's cover when it was well-known during Bubba's reign on the cocktail circuit???

[probligo]

Shortly after 9/11 there was international agreement, sponsored by the US, reached through the UN on international banking and the restriction of funding to terrorist organisations.

Shortly after that, NZ promulgated the agreement (along with Australia and most of Europe except Switzerland) by passing law that required banks to notify RBNZ of all transfers over USD5,000. No secret there; the first time my employer paid overseas creditors we received a nice little email from our banks saying "You realise that we are required to report these transactions..."

Travelling in or out of NZ? You will be reminded to declare any currency that you are carrying in excess of NZD10,000. How long could you keep that secret?

What a silly hoha!!!

[BigGuy]

"I wonder if someone on the political left could do the country a favor by calling our attention to an anti-terrorist operation that they actually APPROVE of, just so that we can compare and contrast."

Class action lawsuits against individuals and organizations that have firebombed abortion clinics and murdered OB/GYN physicians have been consistently supported by all -- other than the reactionary Right.

[BigGuy]

W's gov't manipulated Judith Miller and fed her lies. They chose to give up Wilson's wife's cover; she had been in charge of covert investigation of WMD's in Iran.

The original cost estimate of our war in Iraq was $1.7 Billion -- it's now up to over $1 Trillion -- 600 times more.

Asserting that we trust the judgement of W, Cheney et al as to what the public needs to know -- not the New York Times -- is placing faith in folks who've proved untrustworthy.

[Darrell]

Recherchez la Gauche...

Knowing that the government is doing something, like monitoring financial records, is the same as knowing the details of how they are doing it? Right. Then again you guys told Al-Qaeda to stop using their satellite phones...

I can see why the Left would be concerned about the government monitoring treasonous activities. Probably the same reason they added terrorists to the Geneva Conventions (the US didn't sign the modified agreements) during the era of Baader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade, et al...

[Ghost Dansing]

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.

As I subtly pointed out, the legal basis for such a program of surveillance is not a "secret" at all...enshrined in the Patriot Act since 2001, and is information readily available to anybody, including terrorists...no big "revelation" by the NYT or anybody else.

Secondly, there is also evidence that the program is of only marginal success, and is easily circumvented by anybody who wants to circumvent, especially terrorist organizations, by use of other means.

See: "World: Terrorism's Alternative Money Route", By Roman Kupchinsky, Radio Free Europe, 14 September 2005...demonstrates both widespread knowledge of monitoring activity and means of circumvention.

So...what do you do with a "secret" program that is not all tha "secret", and is not that effective either?

You "leak" it...even though it doesn't have to be "leaked" to achieve another purpose:

Possibly a "political" purpose, like furthering political intentions to concentrate governmental powers in the Executive Branch...a well known goal of this Republican adminstration.

You set up a staw man argument about whether or not such surveillance should be done...when the real issue is whether or not it can and should be done extra-legally without oversight of the Executive.

That was the real issue with the NSA case, and would be the real issue here, except it appears that this specific affair was in fact conducted within the framework of existing laws...whereas the "wire-tap" issue appeared to circumvent FISA...the provisions legislated for Judical oversight of domestic surveillance.

The non-leak is a non-issue...it serves only as a political straw man in an attempt to win-over popular support for domestic surveillance, and implicitly, for greater Executive powers to carry that out free of oversight.

I see allusions to the "left" as the antagonist in all this...I'm not sure how Libertarians ended up on the "right", however, I would have expected Libertarians to have the loudest voice in opposition to the marginalization of Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Some, however, would prefer to be safe as serfs and slaves, then to have to stand on their own hind feet.

Loyal Republicans to the last.

[saus]

I've been sitting thinking the last few minutes why somebody would do this.

If you're a hard Liberal, or anti-war what have you and don't support the use of force.. Ok whatever it's weak but some people are weak. A program like this is exactly what somebody like that should be cheering about.

The use of law enforcement to deal with the very real threat of terrorism, the use of police and investigative / intelligence assets instead of tanks and troops, this is what they have been whining about. It doesn't process for me, this is what the left WANTS, why are they endlessly sabotaging these programs like morons and liberals love it! Removing these tools only heightens the likelihood of some form of violence and force ensuing from either side.

It's not media, it's treason IMHO.

[Stefan]

I wonder if someone on the political left could do the country a favor by calling our attention to an anti-terrorist operation that they actually APPROVE of, just so that we can compare and contrast. Does the ACLU or NYT have any domestic security programs they think are legal? I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer is “NO”. That would really tell you something wouldn't it?

[rich]

If this database is located in Belgium it is not subject to US law. The facts remind one of the Bermuda intercepts from WW II when all calls leaving the USA went by cable to Bermuda where they were legally intercepted under British law.

The New York Times, on the other hand has revealed secret activities of the United States government. It has done so intentionally and in a manner that harms the war effort.

The administration does not seem to want to prosecute. But it should do something to protect itself.

It might be interesting to seek a declaratory judgment against the New York Times seeking a declaration limited to the issue of whether such publications are protected by the First Amendment. (Not whether a crime has been committed.) The declaration could be used in civil or criminal legislation addressing this behavior.

Discovery alone might put several reporters and publishers in jail for contempt.

[Ghost Dansing]

Methinks we found the leaker:

Subtitle A: International Counter Money Laundering and Related Measures - Amends Federal law governing monetary transactions to prescribe procedural guidelines under which the Secretary of the Treasury (the Secretary) may require domestic financial institutions and agencies to take specified measures if the Secretary finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that jurisdictions, financia1 institutions, types of accounts, or transactions operating outside or within the United States, are of primary money laundering concern. Includes mandatory disclosure of specified information relating to certain correspondent accounts.

(Sec. 356) Instructs the Secretary to: (1) promulgate regulations requiring registered securities brokers and dealers, futures commission merchants, commodity trading advisors, and commodity pool operators, to file reports of suspicious financial transactions; (2) report to Congress on the role of the Internal Revenue Service in the administration of the Bank Secrecy Act; and (3) share monetary instruments transactions records upon request of a U.S. intelligence agency for use in the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism.

(Sec. 358) Amends the Right to Financial Privacy Act to permit the transfer of financial records to other agencies or departments upon certification that the records are relevant to intelligence or counterintelligence activities related to international terrorism.

Amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require a consumer reporting agency to furnish all information in a consumer's file to a government agency upon certification that the records are relevant to intelligence or counterintelligence activities related to international terrorism.

(Sec. 360) Authorizes the Secretary to instruct the United States Executive Director of each international financial institution to use his or her voice and vote to: (1) support the use of funds for a country (and its institutions) which contributes to U.S. efforts against international terrorism; and (2) require an auditing of disbursements to ensure that no funds are paid to persons who commit or support terrorism.

(Sec. 376) Amends the Federal criminal code to extend the prohibition against the laundering of money instruments to specified proceeds of terrorism.

USA PATRIOT Act:
Title III -- International Money Laundering Abatement and
Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 2001

It was leaked into the Law in 2001.

Anyway;

Prior to publication of the NYT's article, some backers of the program had expressed concerns that Swift, based in Brussels, could be prompted to pull out of the program if its role were revealed — particularly in light of sharp anti-American sentiments in parts of Europe. But an official with Swift, speaking on condition of anonymity, said today that there had been "no discussions" about a withdrawal.

Still, there were indications of possible disagreements between Swift and the American government over the group's role and how it came to cooperate.

Swift has said that its role in the program was never voluntary, that it was obligated to comply with a valid subpoena presented by American officials, and that it worked to narrow the range of data it provided.

[Kenny Pierce]

Kevin,

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with your point, other than the assumption (if any) that people haven't already thought about it or don't take it seriously.

But the fact is, as you graciously recognize (I think), that people who are willing to resort to violence and deceit can't be effectively stopped without covert intelligence operations being aimed against them. Your point would be just as valid if it were used as a complaint against the existence of undercover police detectives. Any time we authorize the government to do anything covert, we take a calculated risk that the government (including later politicians who weren't around when we made the original authorization) will push the opportunity to the point where the government becomes a greater risk than the people from whom we asked the government to protect us originally. I have every sympathy with your concern; but unless you're going to outlaw all covert operations entirely (which will destroy the government's ability to protect us), then you're going to have to evaluate a lot of operations on a case-by-case basis. In this case I think the tradeoff balance is overwhelmingly in favor of what the government was doing; and I think that the New York Times has done the country a grave disservice. And I think if we could determine who had leaked the information, we ought to put him in jail for a very, very, very long time.

But that doesn't mean your concern isn't an entirely reasonable one in principle.

[Kevin]

I am all for getting the terrorists and disrupting their funding. However, I get scared every time I hear about the Administration doing secretive things. This spying power could grow into something bigger. It can be used against political opponents. Even if Bush is not using it in that way, what is going to stop the next president from doing it? I hope that everyone here thinks about that before they give this secret program their blessing.

[epaminondas]

The espionage acts of WW1 SUCK, to put it mildly. When you have people like Learned Hand, Frankfurter, Holmes (who came around 180 degrees), Robert Jackson pretty much all releasing people convicted under the act it has meaning.

The problem is that the press acts as if IT is the moral arbiter of what the world should know, and they are not. They are people writing stories so the owners can sell advertising space.

I simply don't see the self restraint necessary to complain of stifling freedom of speech. The right of the NY Times to publish what they deem important, is not as significant as a bus full of people in Hoboken getting shredded. Not now.

This is why the Justice Dept needs to define a line. No doubt some will complain it is arbitrary, and in fact, it will be. But at least there will be a criterion for breaching the faith and safety of the people. If there are those dissatisfied with the line and they cross it for that purpose, well that's fine as well, and see you at SCOTUS. That is precisely why they are there.

[Fausta]

It's becoming a habit with the NYT.

[DennisM]

Just an observation about one of the reporters names. Eric Lichtblau's last name means light blue or the same color as the helmets used by thre U.N. Just an observation.

[Kenny Pierce]

JPE,

Do you mind linking to the statute in question? Thanks.

[gringoman]

Can we please cut to the chase for a moment?---(I mean, of course, the NY Times chase.)

Can we forget Eric Lictblau and James Risen for a moment? These are, after all, when all is said and betrayed, only industrious hired hands of the powerful little Progressive Trust-Fund Baby, i.e. the 'C' student who inherited a "world-shaking" newspaper, who admittedly has reviled the military ever since he was rooting for the North Vietnamese in that war his kind helped to "win" against the side that has spoiled him forever. This 'Pinch,' (and he's only secular Jewish on his father's side) even revealed his whole "anti-imperialist" agenda in a college speech recently, sounding exactly like an aging hippie who is still living in 1968, "apologizing" to the bright-eyed kids for not yet having conquered the world for them. And this is the little super shmuck that not only writers fear (book review anxieties) and journo hopefuls, but even Presidents?

We can leave to ShrinkWrapped or Doctor Insanity etc the question of why "Pinch" Sulzberger is what he is, the anxiety and need to show---like any hunk of Hollywood tinsel--- that he deserves his fortune by transferring his sense of guilt, insecurity and maybe even worthlessness to the "ruling class" and imperialists ("See, see, folks, I'm not really one of THEM! I take the silver spoon out of my mouth and shove it up theirs! See? I am on the PEOPLE's side! Got it? So please, please, please, don't look at me like I'm one of them. Okay? I really am worthy of your respect, see?")

Okay, George Bush may be preferable to Dhimmicrats and the spawn of Sulzberger and the ordinary run of trust funders. He flew a jet fighter, which is not a joke even in peace time. He acted like a man at war, in the most controversial war of a generation, at least up through the drive to Baghdad, after which his pc constraints took over and the bogging down began, and he let the military be lawyerized, since he did not have (1) enough soldiers in the Clintonized "Peace Dividend" Army and/or (2) the will and the stomach to ruthlessly secure the trouble spots. You may come to praise him for this or that. (I still, despite everything, do not regret helping to keep UN-lover Kerry home with his Ketchup Queen, instead of in the WH))

But let's get real. Praise Bush all you like. (There are still moments when I might go soft on him myself.) Still, why not face this music? George Bush is a politically correct warrior who is now permitting the mosquification of Quantico, the persecution of young Marines who are forced into ultra-dangerous urban combat, and the pc-ing of the U.S. military, not to mention the historic demolition of US borders for multi-national business interests, the Harvard MBA triumphant. Does anyone believe he has either (1) the interest (2) the will (3) the vision or (4) the courage to go after a seditious yet strangely feared and powerful trust-fund baby like the "progressive" 'Pinch' Sulzberger of the NY Times?

You say there are no laws for his Justice Department to use against these elite idiots? I say there are and must be. So what are they? I don't know and don't need to know, and don't even care to know. There are plenty of lawyers or other specialists out there (every bit as parse-worthy as Glenn Greenwald)who do know. Why is Team Bush not using them? What is Team Bush waiting for? (This I don't know either.)

Does anyone know what Team Bush is waiting for?

[igout]

During WW1, I think, actions much less condemnable could get you lynched, sometimes with a wink and a nod from the law. Bring back those days ASAP.

[Saul Davis]

I believe that it is now time to begin criminal prosecution of the 2 Times, their reporters and especially those within the Government who leaked this information to the reporters, under the Espionage Act, and whatever other criminal statutes are available to the Government; the only way to treat these irresponsible disclosures is to use the entire panoply of the law against those who undermine the ability of the Government to protect us in time of war; I firmly believe that once such prosecutions commence, all of us will see significantly more responsible behavior from the MSM and Gov't leakers.

[Alexandra]

Epami,

My sentiment exactly. When is the Administration truly going to realize, and not just give us lip service, that we are at war, and put in some protective measures against this irresponsible bantering with lives in exchange for a trumped up excuse of "civil liberties". A perfectly good classified anti-terrorist system has been destroyed today in the name of this "moral and ethical service" by people who due to their status seem to be above the law and are able to distribute classified documentation at will, protected by their status. The very status that should oblige them to exercise caution, put their partisan agendas to one side, and appreciate the enormous privilege and inherent responsibility which they have been given.

[Michael van der Galien]

Here's my take on it:

If we want to fight terrorism effective we need to fight their funding. The reason terrorist organizations are so effective in their attempt to spread fear and kill innocent civilians is because they receive millions of dollars every year from both domestic and foreign supporters.

Without money they can't do anything anymore.

Thus: it is an absolute necessaty in the war against terrorism to know who funds them and to lock those people up.

Simple.

On the other hand, I have some 'concerns' about the legality of this program. Although the administration clearly believes it's legal, government officials themselves are seldom the best people in the world to decide whether or not what they are doing is legal. Therefore I wonder whether certain members of Congress knew enough about it, so there would be some checks and balances.

I must say that I find the NY Times story to be highly.. insinuating, while being fague at the same time. Sometimes they insinuate that it 'could' be illegal, while on other pages insinuating that it is legal. That alone makes we a little bit wary of this NY Times article.

They seem to imply a lot... but that's about it.

[epaminondas]

Someplace in the sliding scale between freedom of speech and the govt's responsibility to protect us is a line.

While there has been a public discussion of where that line is for a while, I think it might be time for a legal std to be put out by the Justice Dept, before some REAL MORON pulls a 1942 Chicago Tribune (when they published the after battle fact htt we had broken the japanese naval ode and knew who was where before the battle), and thinks he or she is doing some moral and ethical service, and manages to get a lot of americans killed.

[Francis W. Porretto]

For me, the most risible aspect of the Left's dudgeon is this: It has been long established, and confirmed by several federal court decisions, that since they're transactions with a commercial common carrier, one has no privacy rights over the times and contact-details of his telephone calls.

NSA's surveillance office was given only those data: who called whom, and when. It was not given any data about the content of anyone's calls. The logic by which leftist critics have alleged this to be an "invasion of privacy" would also imply that one has privacy rights over all one's commercial transactions -- that when Smith buys a good or service from Jones, Jones acquires an enforceable obligation to keep the transaction secret. Why doesn't Jones have an equal right to disseminate the information as he pleases? As an equal partner to the event, shouldn't he have equal rights concerning it?

Ah, me. There I go again, expecting the Left to make sense, when all it wants is to return to the halls of power. That, too, is well established.