http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/4339.htm -- 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
i had intended to stay out of this, and the bbs in general, but it seems to me the times has truly crossed the line here. freedom of the press is not the issue, depsite mr. keller's rather feeble attempts to cast himself as the great defender of the consitiution. the times has knowinging made america less secure, has willfully exposed legal programs that are vital to the war on terror, and they should be held to account. Glenn Reynolds explains the issue much better than i could: BILL KELLER ISN'T VERY BRIGHT, or else he thinks you aren't. How else to explain this passage in his apologia for the Times' publication of classified information about the terrorist financial surveillance program: I realize that the Times' circulation is falling at an alarming rate, but it hasn't yet reached such a pass that its stories are only noticed when Rush Limbaugh mentions them. A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. Keller writes: "It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly." The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry. (A bit more on this topic can be found here.) Characterizing the freedom this way, of course, makes much of Keller's piece look like, well, just what it is -- arrogant and self-justificatory posturing. To quote Keller: "Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements." Or institutional self-importance. As Hugh Hewitt observes, at the conclusion to a much lengthier critique: "He doesn't have any defense other than his position as editor of a once great newspaper." And the Constitution does not permit titles of nobility.
I don't seem to recall this level of indignation by you when the Bush administration blew the cover of a source inside Al Qaeda who was in e-mail contact with Al Qaeda operatives and actually using that contact to flush them out. The Whitehouse issued some warnings and the press questioned Bush on it, and the whitehouse folded like a limp wash rag. Here's a refresher. I'm not defending the Times if they did indeed publish information that would endanger anyone. I am doubting the legitimacy and sincerity in the faux and manufactured outrage that Bush supporters seem to have this time around.
"But we know that freedom cannot be served by the devices of the tyrant. As it is an ancient truth that freedom cannot be legislated into existence, so it is no less obvious that freedom cannot be censored into existence. And any who act as if freedom’s defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America." President DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, June 1953 "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier." President GEORGE W. BUSH, December 2000 Freedom of the press is the issue, Basso. It's the only thing protecting the American people from the Bush/Cheney Junta at this point in time. The press didn't do it's job during the run-up to the Iraq occupation. They're doing it now.
I think most Americans (all things being equal) would side with Snow on this issue. If indeed this is a legal and covert program that is there to protect Americans, then sure maybe the Times blew the cover. However, President Bush's past history with covert programs doesn't exactly give him too much credibility in the legality department, and I think more people have become sympathetic to the idea of exposing these types of programs after the history of questionable legal interpretations put forward by the Bush administration.
NY Times + BBC + The Guardian = pure crap. Now we can add treasonous to the NY Times' list of problems. Liberals = weak on terror, once again. The depths they sink to to score selfish political points is pathetic....although this one should backfire on them. Once again, they throw **** until something sticks, nevermind the harm it does to America.
The tracking of bank accounts was widely publicized as a way to track terrorists and cut off their income when the "War of Terror" first started. The fact that there is a specific program should come as no surprise to anyone, much less the terrorist. What is the big deal?
So do you believe the Bush administration was weak on terror when it exposed the AL Qaeda double agent who was giving them ongoing information about Al Qaeda's plans and operatives? Do you believe that blowing that operation makes them weak on terror?
[signed] John W. Snow, Secretary U.S. Department of the Treasury better said ... John W. Snow, Bush Political Hack, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury Funny how we are a country of laws for liberals but not for conservatives.
Are there any articles that show where any democrats were really pushing for this story to not be pushed out? If both parties were really not wanting the story to go out then I think it reflects poorly on the NYT. Just because you can write about a story doesn't necessarily mean that you should.
The Bush administration has mislead Americans into war, been extremely secretive and has a demonstated track record of mishandling national events of historic proportion. You'll pardon my skepticm if I give this issue some time to flush out before rushing to judgement. Fool me once... fool me twice... I don't accept anything the Bush administration states as fact during the first iteration ...and you shouldn't either. Mission Accomplished
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1151553600&en=b1486962b3c8b073&ei=5070 The LA Times and the Wall Street Journal also ran articles the same day. But of course the WSJ gets a pass. Hum...wonder why?
I'm wondering if ALL those who reported it were asked not to for national security reasons...Or was the NYT the first to, and the others had the door open?...
thanks again, a few things, maybe a few of the lawyers on the board can address this but when I worked at a local bank here in houston, twice I received requests from the gov't to give them financial records. one request from the fbi, one from the irs, two separate cases. it seems that the laws governing bank information availability are very loose. in both cases, the letters told me not inform the customer. both cases happened before 9-11 and had nothing to do with terrorism. from reading the article, it would seem that the whole national security argument isn't in play because these traces left after banking transactions cannot be avoided. it seems the article only makes a few distinctions on what draws attention, where the money comes from, size of transactions. again, the only thing I would think a terrorist could learn from this article is not to use banks. criminals in this country already know this. as stated, terrroists have already been convicted using this information so I would assume that other terrorists know its out there. I don't see how this article gives them any info they don't already have. lastly the only issue that should be of concern imo, is constitutionality, and not freedom of speech. these programs aren't specific operations like the valerie plame leak, this is a large operation that affects all americans. the gov't routinely uses financial records to investigate criminal activity in all walks of life. as a citizen, I have the right to know what info of mine the gov't has access to.
I'd be interested to know - did both of those accounts make a lot of high-dollar transactions? Did you have any indication of why the FBI/IRS was interested?
It wasn't really transactions, they wanted me to copy their file. both guys were small business owners. the funny thing about the fbi request, I always thought the guy was a drug dealer, i'm pretty sure that's what it was about. the irs request I'm pretty sure was just tax issues, the business was legitmate. both businesses were.
This administration no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. After many tortured arguments about legality, the only way to understand if a program is legal is to expose it and let people outside of the administration decide. The administration's word that something is legal probably means it isn't. Also, given what is going on with phone records and such, I would bet this is not the last word on this program and suspect that it will end up being more insidious than currently thought.
