For all you morons is the opening of De La Where's post in re: the NYT and financial monitoring programs. The article he cites, in my view, is not the slam dunk he thinks it is. This is a question of intentions vs. capabilities.
That the US was seeking to track terrorist financing is certainly not news. It didn't start after 9/11 and certainly won't end with the disclosure of the SWIFT program. As the article states, the US declared in open session their intention to use the SWIFT program. That doesn't mean the program wasn't secret. It is conceivable that we would not have been able to monitor the program nor that it was in motion. Shining the largest light in media upon the program was a bad idea, a betrayal (not a service) of the public trust and damaged our ability to monitor terrorists. The same voices that were up in arms over the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity and called for impeachment are now dismissing the SWIFT story with a sniff and a wave. John Snow and others specifically told Bill Keller and Sultzberger the story would hamper our ability to monitor terrorist financing. The program was legal, overseen by both the courts and Congress and yes, secret. Did the NYT (and others) serve the public trust by disclosing such a program? No. There was no valid reason to report on the program. I would ask if the NYT would report on secret, yet legal programs, where is the line? Would they knowingly compromise war plans or spies? Would they disclose technical capabilities of submarines?
The WaPo also conflates CHIPS and SWIFT. The two are distinctly different. CHIPS is owned co-operatively by chartered banks which may become "members" (read: stakeholders) in CHIPS whereas SWIFT is an entity of itself and not run by a conglomerate of banks. While the disclosure of the program will hamstring our ability to track terrorist financing, there is an upside. There is no other way to move large amounts of cash around the globe rapidly (Fedwire notwithstanding as you can be damn sure we're watching that one). You can't carry it in suitcases. You can't write huge checks or convert it to diamonds or what have you. You need hard currency and you need banks to move it.
Bottom line; The NYT acted irresponsibly.
That the US was seeking to track terrorist financing is certainly not news. It didn't start after 9/11 and certainly won't end with the disclosure of the SWIFT program. As the article states, the US declared in open session their intention to use the SWIFT program. That doesn't mean the program wasn't secret. It is conceivable that we would not have been able to monitor the program nor that it was in motion. Shining the largest light in media upon the program was a bad idea, a betrayal (not a service) of the public trust and damaged our ability to monitor terrorists. The same voices that were up in arms over the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity and called for impeachment are now dismissing the SWIFT story with a sniff and a wave. John Snow and others specifically told Bill Keller and Sultzberger the story would hamper our ability to monitor terrorist financing. The program was legal, overseen by both the courts and Congress and yes, secret. Did the NYT (and others) serve the public trust by disclosing such a program? No. There was no valid reason to report on the program. I would ask if the NYT would report on secret, yet legal programs, where is the line? Would they knowingly compromise war plans or spies? Would they disclose technical capabilities of submarines?
The WaPo also conflates CHIPS and SWIFT. The two are distinctly different. CHIPS is owned co-operatively by chartered banks which may become "members" (read: stakeholders) in CHIPS whereas SWIFT is an entity of itself and not run by a conglomerate of banks. While the disclosure of the program will hamstring our ability to track terrorist financing, there is an upside. There is no other way to move large amounts of cash around the globe rapidly (Fedwire notwithstanding as you can be damn sure we're watching that one). You can't carry it in suitcases. You can't write huge checks or convert it to diamonds or what have you. You need hard currency and you need banks to move it.
Bottom line; The NYT acted irresponsibly.
Comments
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. We elect people to run the government while we run the store. We have to place a certain amount of trust in them to do so. Opening all government activity to oversight in matters of policing and national security is detrimental to our safety.
You make is sound as if these monitoring programs were run exclusively by Bush or Cheney with no oversight and that the program was illegal. Neither is true. Newspapers are not the only form of legitimate oversight we have. The Intelligence and Oversight committees are both bipartisan (as it should be) and vital to that effort. Additionally, the courts review these programs as well.
I think using mowing your lawn as an example is a bad one. Mowing your lawn is a public activity with no risk. Imagine if the police said: "We are going to clean up Wilmington. There are too many drug dealers and illegal firearms." Sounds good, right? Now the WNJ publishes the dates and times of the raids that are going to take place in the coming weeks. Do you think that might hamper the raids? Would John Q. Criminal not get word that he might want to avoid those particular locations?
I didn't lump the other papers in with the NYT as they were the prime mover on the story. They were the ones that were holding the story to run as their own. The WH and Treasury spoke specifically and exclusively to them prior to running the story. The other papers were riding coatails and wouldn't have had the story if NYT hadn't run it.
Look, government needs civilian oversight to be sure. However, my point is this: If a program is legal and secret and has been reviewed by the other two branches and is not in contravention of our Constitution, there is no reason do disclose the program.
Do you think, knowing what you now know about the SWIFT program, the public benefitted in any way? Were there legal or constitutional violations? If so, what were they?