Treason and the New York Times: a matter of public interest.
By Miguel Guanipa (06/30/06)
Under a program begun shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Treasury Department began retrieving financial information from a Belgium-based banking consortium that maintains a global banking database, in order to track down the financing of terrorist operations. Thus far this initiative has proven rather effective in tracking down several well known terror suspects and stymied their schemes. Divulging this method of tracking down the terrorist’s financial shenanigans was a story New York Times Editor Bill Keller felt was a matter of public interest.
Now all the explaining in the world can not take away from the fact that Mr. Keller and his publication – the paper that prides itself in reporting “all the news that’s fit to print”-either made a colossal blunder in judgment by divulging information about a secret plan that would have eventually crippled the efforts of the terrorists (hence he may be excused for his folly), or was simply blinded by his ideologically driven hatred toward the current administration to ignore all caution and proceed with publishing a story which can only help hinder our ability to keep tabs on those who want to hurt us, in which case he is unfit to serve in his capacity as executive editor of the New York Times and perhaps should be selling it at a kiosk instead.
Either way, the most respectable course of action at this juncture is to follow in Jason Blair’s footsteps and find another line of work.
The story I am referring to was originally published by James Rise, an avowed anti Iraq war pundit and author of State of War (a book he claims is “based on information from a variety of anonymous sources”), and Eric Lichtblau who runs an antiwar website called Why-war.com.
Articles on Mr. Litchtblau’s site range from the efforts of evil republicans to push for a permanent installment of the Patriot Act to why it is plausible to believe that Saddam had been captured by an unknown Iraqi resistance group prior to the US forces finding him in the spider hole where he was hiding. You may also find enlightening essays on “cultivating revolutionary events” and “writing an ethnography of resistance”. A more thorough chronicle of Mr. Litchblau’s love affair with the leftist ideology on the far side of the communist manifesto can be found in the website www.Timeswatch.org.
In short, anyone who claims these two reporters did not have an agenda has either not done his homework or is a prime candidate for electric shock therapy.
In Dec 2003 Mr. Lichtblau wrote an article expressing his concern that “Federal authorities (did) not have a clear understanding of how terrorists move their financial assets and are still struggling to prevent the flow of money to terror groups”. Now thanks to him and his in-depth reporting on how bank data is sifted by the US secretly to block terror funds, the Osama bin ladens of the world have him to thank for alerting them to this effort to thwart their murderous campaigns.
This is the same duo that broke the news on the Bush administration authorizing the National Security Agency to “eavesdrop” on Americans and search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants. Nothing that has been reported even remotely disproves that these programs were fully legal and implemented with the careful safeguarding of civil liberties as the utmost priority.
Immediately the Times jumped feverishly into damage control mode by positing the public’s interest argument, summoning past precedent on the negative repercussions of muzzling the press, and cautioning the public to be very, very afraid of the Bush administration turning the “necessity of heightened vigilance against terrorism into a rationale for an extraordinarily powerful executive branch”. In other words they knew they were wrong and had to find ways to justify their reckless behavior.
The fact that these stories even made it into print shows that there are obviously internal sources embedded in the highest posts of the present administration from which the recent damaging leaks originated. Which makes one wonder, if the White House was to follow the counsel of many democrats - who have already expressed their enmity towards George W. Bush- and briefed every single member of the house and senate on all counter-terrorism initiatives, odds are that the “whistle-blowers” who have made it their mission to allow a hostile press to eavesdrop on these secret operations will surely be among his audience.
Now that the NYT (who was the first news media organization to obtain this scoop)has revealed the true motives behind their reporting practices, the current administration will no doubt feel it is time to invoke a few more restrictions, at least for the sake of the country’s safety, if not to prevent some overzealous reporters from committing treason, which some have plausibly argued has already happened.
This is even more puzzling when you realize that there are plenty of people working at the NYT who could go out to lunch and walk past the site where Osama’s jihadists crashed two Boeing 767’s. One would think that such sober reminder would deter most people from doing anything to aid those who committed this terrible crime. But apparently that is not the case with these two Pulitzer prize winning reporters.
Some outspoken liberal bloggers have even praised this juvenile stunt on the part of the NYT for sticking it to the Bush administration. This defense is so pathetic given the fact this disclosure is more likely to prove harmful for those who demand more effective protective measures against terrorist attacks; it’s almost like championing the right of a serial killer to carry a weapon soon after he has just murdered your family.
The times editor insisted that “nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues." I’m afraid the Times’ own past performance does not strongly vouch for these dual assertions.
This will mark the second time the NYT has chosen to disclose classified information about such initiatives, where it was a legitimate argument of the American public simply not being hurt by what they do not know (and frankly do not need to know).
In his zeal to hurt an administration whose policies he deeply abhors, and convey his moral outrage at it’s alleged manifold authority grabbing excesses, Mr. Keller failed to see his own error in judgment for which he needs to atone, and turned this matter into a case of what the terrorists now do know can and will hurt us.
What Bill Keller forgot in his arrogance is that what’s of significance to the NY T given the fact that it is ultimately a business, is not always what is most expedient for the rest of the country. Perhaps he should revisit the original question: “Why publish?” rather than why they should not withhold information which is of significance only to a few elite ideologues on the far left.
On the bright side, this utter disregard by the NYT for the safety of the citizens of this country may actually make it easier for the authorities to track down Osama bin Laden. Once he gets wind of how much inside information he can get from this newspaper he will probably get his own subscription.
“It’s an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press” Bill Keller quipped in his condescending rebuttal to his critics. A powerful thing indeed Mr. Keller, and you have once again proven yourself unworthy of wielding such power.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
