The NY Times vs. The President. Who determines the People's Legitimate Right to Know?
 

On September 19, 2001, just eight days after the 9/11 attacks, the WSJ published the following on it's editorial page:

Is the following an accurate description of what has happened in the five years since the 9/11 attacks, or in the seven months since the NY Times reported the warrantless domestic wiretaps story, or in the month since several news orgs published the foreign monetary transaction surveillance story?
I think that the NY Times has told us nothing that is beyond our right to know, as far as the legal and illegal monitoring by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies. I am especially concerned about what I perceive as baseless attacks on leading news media orgs by politicians in Washington who seem to forget that we do have a right to know what our government is doing if it circumvents the law or invades our privacy. How can we criticize or support what we have no knowledge of? Shouldn't our sacrifice in investing what it took to enjoy the protection of the most powerful military in the history of the world, in a country that spends ten times as much on it's military, annually, as it's closest rival, entitle us to live in the freeest and most open society on the planet, with the most transparent government?

<b>If we can't manage this....a free society with a free press and an accountable government, who can? Shouldn't the most freedom of information and government transparency and the criticism that is a consequence of governing the freeest and most informed citizenry, be the right and privilege of the most insignifigant and the most powerful democratic societies,</b> the former because no rival is interested in threatening them, and the latter because no threat exists that is substantial enough, compared to their power and stature, to justify the narrowing of access to freedom to know and to freely criticize?

How does muzzling and intimidating the press, when done by an presidential administration that has erred on the side of secrecy and classification of as much information as possible, and has polled increasingly low minority support in the categories of trust and honesty, undeniably for cause; help to raise the reputation of such an administration?

I think that we are on the doorstep of a more desperate time, a time where freedom of the press and official lipservice paid to the concept of "democracy", will be suspended and replaced by more forceful and restrictive edicts of an increasingly desperate administration. They want to keep the control and lack of accountability that, after five years, they have become accustomed to. It is however, 5 years since 9/11 and the administration's performance and reputation are on display for all to see and evaluate.

I think that they are using the circumstances of declining support and increasing opposition, as an excuse to further consolidate power and control.
"in the interest of national security". Do you agree, and are you ready to let them, or will you decide to attempt to get in their way?

It's a fine line, but freedom of the press does not equal freedom to release classified documents.

It is not a "fine line"...there is a clear description of what classified info cannot be released or published by the press; other than those described items and categories, the opposite of what you posted seems more accurate:

In the last bold quotes in this post, Washington Post reporter says that freedom of the press does equal release of classified documents, Seaver. Dana Priest said that the exceptions to this are: <b>"But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can’t publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.

Now why isn’t it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn’t it not a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight,"</b>

Seaver, if you're pressed for time, or only mildly interested, please just read only the bolded and enlarged highlights. It appears that the executive branch and some republicans in congress are singling out the NY Times. The excerpt from the WSJ editorial is "over the top". I think that Time's editor Keller renders the attacks on the Times by pols, pundits, and the WSJ, seem silly and far fetched, because the folks who work for the Times all live in two prime terror target areas....why would they decide to make where they live and work, "less safe", by publishing info that would strengthen an enemy that has already carried out terrorist attacks in those two cities?

The comments in the last quote box, from July 2's "Meet the Press", indicate that the administration has been quite open about this financial surveillance. I'll provide linked references to five or more quotes, that go at least as far back as around 9/11, that prove this.

Seaver, do you simply prefer to let an administration that classifies more documents that it generates, than it leaves unclassified, free to classify everything, and then use that action to keep the press from examining and publishing any document originating from that government branch?

Again...isn't the Times beign scapegoated as a diversion, now that you have been informed that it is legal for the press to publish all but a narrowly defined set of classified info? I highlighted the report that the Times was given the info that it published from more than 20 current or former government officials. If anyone should appropriately be investigated, it is them, not the Times.

....and again, if any country is strong enough militarily to uphold and defend it's free press and all of it's citizens' rights during "war time", wouldn't that country be the U.S. There has been no threat deemed serious enough to reverse tax cuts, or to call for any sacrifice from citizens on the homefront.

There has been no attack or serious plot uncovered to do so, in five years in the U.S. Is the Times doing anymore than attempting to tell us all what it has been told, is happening, as far as decisions of this administration, and since the administration has not shown any evidence that any damage to national security has been done by any news reports, is the official criticism of the Times, fair or accurate? You may not want to know, Seaver, but to me, it is important that I know. The Times knows what classified info it is prohibited from publishing, all information that isn't prohibited should be shared with us promptly. Too many Americans have fought and died to preserve this process, this right. We spend the money for the strongest and best defense....it allows us to err on the side of openness, and to freely criticize what that openness reveals to us about our government. When Cheney attacks a news org that is acting within it's rights, he is attacking my right to know, and by extension, my right to criticize his policies and directives.

Time Magazine has a nice, evenhanded editorial regarding this.

maybe, but it seems that it swings back the way that it should over time as evidenced by:

The fear mongering works both ways, all say that FEAR that something will attack you, it's just divided between who it is, external enemy threat (people), or internal enemy threat (government.)

Either way, it's all Chicken Little posturing to me.

Freedom of the press is just that FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

We cannot as a "FREE" society, restrict what the press prints.

However, I am concerned about how the press gets these supposed "top secret" documents and do believe the people handing them over are treasonous and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, whether it was outing a CIA agent or handing over military documents.

I maybe against the war and against the current administration, but if we are putting our men in harm's way and possibly hurting their chances of survival then we need to find those responsible for passing along the information.

This does not mean that the press should name sources, I don't believe we should ever force that, nor do I believe that press should be punished in any way, by the government..... if the people don't like what a certain media prints or releases then do not buy that media, sales go down and it goes out of business... that is supposedly the "Capitalistic" way.

Bush wants to make this an issue but he doesn't say he's going after the "leaks" nor shows us that he is. Why?

Could it be that he knows the leaks are out there, maybe even planted them so that people will get upset over what the press releases and thus demand censorship and hurt what the press can release?

It may sound conspiratorial but until I see people truly tried for the release of information that is classified, I will believe that it is planted by the government, so that they can do just that, bitch about the freedom so they can limit it.

Bush is in a no-win situation. If there were to be an attack on the United States, big or small, the press would complain that it was because Bush and the government weren't doing enough to protect the people. They'd be eaten alive. But as long as there are no attacks, it's ok for idiots like Bill Keller to release classified information related to stopping terrorism. Bush's poll approval ratings are back up in the mid 40s as well.

bushco are quite committed to what naomi klein helpfully named as the politics of identity branding. here is a snippet from an interview she did in which she outlines the idea:

source: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21099/

the facts of the matter that klein refers to are not new, nor is she presenting anything like a systematic analysis in this interview to back up her characterization--but she does give identity branding as a nice tag, and that tag fits very well with the patterns developed by the right.

so it follows: rove et al find themeselves in a no-win situation: if they acknowledge anything of substance concerning this administrations consistent abuse of its power under the pretext of its "war on terror" the administration is fucked--they cannot defend themselves in anything like a debate about the merits of their actions or their rationales in which they do not control the terms of debate. and they are sweating the midterm elections. so what do you get? the nytimes is disloyal. they attack the person of the president, the collective person of the right, and so should themselves be attacked--by attacking in this manner, the hope obviously is to divert attention away from the substance of this and any number of other such allegations concerning the administration's contempt for the rule of law.

the move is directed at the republican base.
its logic follows from the centrality of identity branding to republican politics.
it resonates with the "liberal media" canard that the right has been tossing about for years now to spare its faithful the vertigo of having to face information they do not like.

you would think, however, that this kind of abuse of power would alienate even further the entire libertarian element of the right's populist coalition.
it'll be interesting if the right's politics of identification trumps any appreciation of the content of the administration's actions--in the financial tracking, its use of wiretaps, its attempts to ignore the geneva convention in the context of guantanomo and "renditions" on and on and on.

from an outside perspective, the roveresponse to the nytimes seems lunatic.
what makes me shudder is that it could well resonate out there.

No but some of them border on aiding and embedding the enemy. Saying how we were monitoring international bank transactions, the method we used to stop cold the terrorist "charity" funds, potentially lost us a valuable tool.

There was an uproar about the release of that CIA agent's name, about how everyone in the Bush administration should face jailtime. If proven true I support it.

However where was the outcry when the FBI director stated to the press (and the press printed it) how we were tracking Bin Laden's satellite phone? Was it because he was a democrat? Was it because that falls under freedom of the press? Well that definately aided Bin Laden, when he was a known dangerous criminal. Personally I think said director and journalist should face charges.

What if the government was carrying out secret murders? When is it okay or not okay to report illegal or potentially illegal activities? Where is the line? Was it wrong to investigate Watergate? Should we have ever found out about Agent Orange?

The government does not always have our best interests in mind, and we need to be aware of that when we choose to trust them. The press, in the case of uncovering the potentially illegal wiretaps, was doing it's civic duty in trying to stop the government from bypassing FISA. Not only do I not view that as aiding the enemy, but I view it as patriotic.

This topic fascinates me, because it seems clear that both extremes are wrong: publishing secrets and not publishing abuses. It's the crazy middle area... In the current situation, it seems to me the press is doing just fine.

I'm much more likely to trust experienced observers of decision making than those making decisions. Anyone of us that makes decisions all day long should know that our egos/reputations/biases are always in play. And that no one makes perfect decisions all the time. I trust these people's discussions, arguements and decisions in part because they are more neutral than those in power.

Here's my link to add to the fray - an op ed from the publishers of the NY and LA Times

Please defend your "idiots like Bill Keller" statement. I find it especially offensive, because I've put the time in to make the thorough case that the Times acted on my behalf, and that they broke no law, because it is not illegal to publish the classified information that they published.

Would you have us know, if it was up to you, nothing about the controversial ,measures that the Bush administration has taken, simply because they stamped most of their unilateral decisions as "classified"? I asked before...if, after five years without a terrorist attack on American soil, this country, when it is spending double on it's military per year, as it did in 2000, and ten times as much as it's next nearest rival, cannot err on the side of a free press and a transparent and accountable government, <b>what country can do that, and when?</b>

How do we know what, about their policymaking, to support or criticize, if Keller cannot publish what he knows, simply because the administration stamps the majority of it's decisions as classified? Does the time we live in and the threats that we face, really compare in immediacy and scope to the Civil War, WWI, or WWII? If you think that it does, please provide references that support how a stateless threat by "evil doers", can trump the right to know of the people of the most powerful nation, militarily, in history?

Here is some of the record of this administration's decision making, when it comes to protecting our security and communicating the threat level:

Bush appointed Porter Goss to head the CIA, and Goss appointed unknown CIA middle manager Kyle "Dusty" Foggo to be CIA #3....executive director, equivalent to the director of operations. Foggo is the best friend....all of his life....of Brent Wilkes, co-conspirator #1 in the Duke Cunningham scandal.

Bush appointed Bernard Kerik to head the new DHS, and then hastily withdrew that appointment:
The white house was caught using the DHS color coded terror alert warning system for political purposes, needlessly raising public concerns, airport delays, and the expense of living in the country for all of us......
The chief of staff in the OVP office was revealed in news reporting, and in releases from special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to be directly involved in telling reporters the name of a classified status employee of the CIA. Then, he lied to the FBI and a federal grand jury about what he had done.

It has been falsely claimed that the administration's handling of pre-Iraq invasion intelligence had been "vetted" by the 9/11 Commission, Sen. Pat Roberts Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and the Robb-Silbermann Investigation, when it fact, all three investigations released reports that stated that they had avoided or been directed, not to investigate that important issue. Roberts has managed....by dividing the "phases" of his investigation...twice....to postpone investigating and reporting on that intelligence handling investigation for two full years, now, and will continue to delay disclosure at least until after the election in November.

I'm only touching the surface, powerclown, for the reasons that I believe that it is my right to know, and Bill Keller's right to report what the administration is doing, that makes your "idiot" label, extreme...... especially in view of the circumstances that clearly make it obvious that this administration is not even attempting to be transparent, accountable, or deserving of our trust. Why not leave the attacks and name calling to Cheney and congressional republicans, why join their chorus? If the news reporting did any harm, where are the examples of that "harm"? Why not make a case that rebuts my documented opinion that Keller was exercising his paper's legitimate contitutional right to publish classified info that did not fall into the narrow realm of prohibited categories?

Your contention that Bush's polling has risen signifigantly does not seem that signifigant:

It's just a big game...a self-important press taking a swipe at a President they don't like.

From what I've read on the SWIFT program, I've come to the conclusion that tracking the financial activities of 'potentially bad people' is a good thing. Therefore, I don't think releasing sensitive information pertaining to said program is necessary - just petty and vindictive.

You really think this is a game? How many people died on 9/11? How many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have died? How many soldiers have died? What's happened to the Constitution and BOR? Self importance obviously has little to do with this, since the press has put itself in a very difficult spot publishing their findings. Why would they do that? Well, it's something called journalistic integrity. If I was a journalist, and I saw the government doing something I thought was illegal, guess what I'd do? What would you do? Would you support a fruitless wire tapping program that OBVIOUSLY effects the privacyt of every American?

I don't understand how it's petty to bravely do one's job. Would you call a firefighter petty just because they put out a fire in a place that you didn't care about?

If it isn't a game, then why did the NYTimes expose a clandestine government program aimed at those responsible for 9/11 (rhetorical question).

What *possible* good could come of it.

There was no rational justification that I can see for them to expose this program. I think you are giving the NYT more credit here than they deserve. This should be a case-study to everyone that the Media, who are also human beings with opinions, is not necessarily completely impartial, unbiased or non-partisan. A case-study they don't teach in journalism school.

You have an amazing sense of humor. Thank you for sharing it.
And the sky is blue. The bottom line is that there exists something called the FISA court, an entity that is responsible for greenlighting surveillance, so as to avoid misuse of power by the surveilers. That court was bypassed for whatever reason. The arguments about the legality of the program are still being debated. What does this tell me? Simple. This program is potentially illegal, and we wouldn't know about this potentially illegal program had it not been for the NYT. They uncovered potentially illegal actions. How is that not a rational justification? Partisan issues aside for one milisecond. Could it be possible that they have done good?

I enjoy the fact you ascert that becuase these people have opinions, they are completly devoid of loyalty to their country and are willing to aid the enemy. That's quite a fantastic leap.

I think that since we are in a different kind of war with such easy technology to pass information, especially classified, that we ought to start limiting some of the first amendment rights like freedom of the press and speech. It should be easy for congress to accomplish. They could start by making a $200 tax for all press passes and put it under the commerce clause. All newspaper companies should have to pay a $200 a year license to print news media on paper and online. They should also make it so that you can only buy and read newspapers from your home state.

What?

You're actually proposing that people not be allowed to read news from anywhere in the world other than their home state? On what grounds? How would it be enforced, especially as far as the internet is concerned? Are you going to ban or regulate interstate travel as well? How much material qualifies as 'news' and therefore for banning? What about blogs?

I'm completely astounded, unless you're being sarcastic to prove a point, which I thought was against the spirit of this place.

sarcasm is perfectly fine here, insults and threats are not.

If I'm not mistaken, he's making a statement about the Second Amendment.

You have a mediocre sense of sarcasm. Try keeping it to yourself eh?

I never said anything about loyalty to country. The leap was yours. I am talking about playing games...publishing something to get back at someone has always been a game played by the press. Thats how I see this.

You are indeed correct, good sir.

If all the press was interested in was hurting the President, they could be doing a much better job of it. The article below makes a better argument than I could:

I seem to have misread your last post. You wrote:
Why? Because it's wrong. Domestic spying has rules to follow. If there was even an iota of reason behind tapping the phones, then they could have simply gone through FISA. What that tells me is that this doesn't have anything to do with terrorism. The FISA court is a revolving door, it almost never turns down requests to wire tap. If the government wanted to tap potential terrorists, then they could have slapped together a quick case and had permission in a matter of hours. They didn't. Not only that, but they didn't even contact the court after the surveliance. No attempt was made to get permission. This blatent disregard for checks and balances tells me one thing: they aren't spying to stop terrorism.

I'm sorry for misreading your post. I havn't slept in 33 hours (long story). I read it too fast and took it as some sort of attack about my conspiracy related questions surrounding 9/11. I apologize.
You are suggesting that the NYT places their partisan writing over the welfare of the country. To me that means disloyalty.

I personally don't care about the motives behind the publishing. The information needed to be out in the open and now it is.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the press like to play games.

sapiens, this is a thought for another subject, but in general, I think it is becoming more and more difficult for nations to fight decisive wars. I agree - the press could be worse.

Some of the opinions expressed on this thread make my case for dividing the politics forum into a "feelings" based section, and a "facts" based section.
The "attack the NY Times" "Op", catches our leaders and those who control the congress, red handed, because their accusations againt the NY Times are exposed for what they are; bullshit propaganda aimed at distracting from the truth and it's messenger. The reason we know this is because the NY Times revealed a "secret"...the monitoring or SWIFT financial transactions, that al Qaeda in Baltimore, knew about for the last five years...if they read the Baltimore Sun......

Seaver, the "outrage" is feigned....the administration knows this. It's a shame that the "chorus" doesn't. The method of surveillance, using "SWIFT" to track "al Qaida" finances, was published nearly five years ago. If "al Qaeda" exists in the form of the dangerous and formidable opponent that the Bush admin. tells us that it is, beyond the fact that "it" is gradually bankrupting the U.S. Treasury, due to the fact that the appropriations to fight "it" are a million times greater than what it "spends" to terrorize America......al Qaeda would be smart enough to have noted the news reports in the fall of 2001, and stopped making any financial transfers that would be monitored.

The NY Times disclosure was about the fact that the monitoring continued anyway, without specifically targeted warrants....and the question still is...against who? That is what this propaganda "Op" is about. It is designed to make the questioning seem treasonous, and it is bullshit. The "target" that justified the CIA/FBI monitoring, via SWIFT, knew for five years, not to do financial transactions that would show up in the SWIFT data monitoring, yet
the program continued, anyway.

Read the Sac Bee editorial, and the inaccurate "chorus" from the conservative web page:
If the statement in bold in the quote box above was true, what did the Baltimore Sun report about (below) way back on September 21, 2001. when their article stated,
So....after that article was published, if you were an al Qaeda money launderer or a distributor of funds to al Qaeda "cells" around the world, would you have initiated any financial transactions that SWIFT could potentially monitor for the US CIA/FBI? I'm just a guy named "host" on a message board.
If I know that al Qaeda was warned, by September 21, 2001, not to use SWIFT, didn't Cheney and Bush also know it, before their posturing and outrage directed last week at the NY Times. They have reasons and an agenda to drive their speech and their false posturing. Those who defend and repeat their claims on this subject seem only to be following flawed leaders...
The above, "old news" is the actual record, and the "noise" from Bush, Cheney, Pat Roberts, Peter King, Jim Bunning, etc.....does not square with the news archive record from 2001.....but your opinion , does square with their "noise".

But see, ultimately, it all falls under the word, OPINION, which we are all entitled to. Your view of "facts" and my view of "facts" encompass different things at different times. Live and let live, if we all had the same beliefs and opinions, what a boring world this would be.

Leading the "charge" against the NY Times reporting, were VP Cheney and President Bush:
How do Cheney's comments "stand up", when they are considered in the context of the September 21, 2001 article that I already posted, and the following, from a December, 2002, UN Report: Can anyone explain to me what Cheney was talking about when he accused the NY Times of <b>"Publishing this highly classified information about our sources and methods for collecting intelligence"?</b> Here is a link to the NY Times, June 22 article:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ei=5090&en=4b46b4fd8685c26b&ex=1308715200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print">Bank Data Is Sifted by US in Secret to Block Terror</a>

I read the whole article linked above, again. How can a news article that reports on the intercepting of SWIFT financial transaction instruction messages, by U.S. government agencies, cause such controversy and fingerpointing from promininet republicans? I've established that the information about U.S. surveillance of <a href="http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:wHQBtSe7APMJ:www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.money21sep21,1,71575.story.hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=">SWIFT was published</a> just 10 days after 9/11, by the Baltimore Sun, and now....I've posted an example of much more specific disclosure of U.S. monitoring of SWIFT, this time in a December 17, 2002 UN Report.

If you've read this far, and compared Cheney's accusations concerning the NY Times reporting, and the public record of SWIFT monitoring by the U.S., in 2001 in the Baltimore Sun, and a year later in a UN report, both fully accessible on the internet, where do you think he is coming from, and what do you think his goals are? IMO, the "games" that powerclown maintains the press is "playing", aren't being played by the press at all. The "games" are being played by Cheney and Bush; and the are openly attempting to impede our right to know, to deflect attention from the mass, warrantless surveilance that is neither "secret", nor intended to "monitor" al Qaeda.

How could it be in your interest to support or defend what Bush/Cheney and their chorus of pundits and faux news parrots are all accusing the NY Times of doing, when it is now apparent that al Qaeda was tipped off about the SWIFT monitoring in 2001 or in 2002, at the latest? The data mining of SWIFT transactions has gone on for five years, who is our government actually monitoring, now that the al Qaeda excuse has worn so thin as a justification?

I have no issue if the FBI director gets in trouble, but no, not never the press. The press can only publish what the government and her agents have released.

Personally, I feel the government and the press work hand in hand on more things than not.

Also, if you have "leaks" and then claim they are hurting the war and blah blah blah..... and the people say, "yes, we need to restrain the press." You'll end up with fewer independant sources, more cover ups, more government corruption and less of the true purpose of the press and that is to be the government's watchdog to keep them in check from becoming to powerful.

Freedom is freedom and the second you put limitations on said freedom, it is no longer free, in any way, shape or form.

I don't think you can simplify it quite this much - if a government employee releases information that they are not authorized to release then they are not acting as an agent of the government. They are taking advantage of their governmental association and acting as an individual.

Cynthetiq, it probably will come as no surprise to you that I could not disagree more with what you wrote in your last post.

If we all were willing to document and provide reference links to share what shapes and supports our beliefs and opinions, what a substantive and useful forum this could be!

My main problem is that you seem to dismiss, "out of hand", the damage that is done to opinion that most closely approximates the truth, when distortions are deliberately launched by leaders with "bully pulpits" (Bush and Cheney), who enjoy, but must responsibly shoulder, the privilege and the influence that having every word they utter publicly, end up in print and on broadcast news media.

Things these leaders say, when they are not true, (and they know it...or should be sure of the accuracy of their assertions before they state them....) or are deliberately mischaracterized and blown out of proportion, have a ripple effect. The republican noise machine picks up on Cheney accusing the NY Times of publishing "state secrets", and catapults the propaganda, as if it were fact, and some folks who post here are impressed by it, and they won't move away from it, no matter what documentation to the contrary is posted for them to "fact check".
Indeed, the leaders' propaganda is reinforced in some of our members' opinion forming processes, to the degree that hints of a consistantly observable extreme; where some here post undocumented assertions that they "feel" no need to support with any documentation to back their opinion, even in response to polite challenges and requests......leaving me to draw no other conclusion than that they believe that what they are posting, <b>"is just so..."</b>, ending a debate that never even got started, since only one side of an argument is debating, as the other side, "knows what they know", but won't post where they got the knowledge...so that it can be examined, dissected, and held up for comparison to the large body of other information that living in the year 2006 in a post industrial society affords us quick access to......

Here is an example of the potential for damage to the right of a free press to question the government: Accusations by Bush and Cheney against the NY Times decision to publish descriptions of the US government's "data mining" program of the Belgian based SWITCH financial transaction message, processing center influenced Sen. Jim Bunning (R- Kentucky) to demand prosecution of everyone involved in that disclosure at the NY Times for TREASON. There was an attempt by republicans to pass a non-binding congressional resolution to specifically condemn the Times for their "disclosure" of the "SWITCH" data mining "Op".

Six months ago, in my post linked here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=67
I shared my documented opinion of "Power Line" and John Hinderaker, one of the site's three principle "bloggers". True to form.....two days ago, instead of questioning whether those political leaders who are criticizing the NY Times are making justfied and accurate accusations, Hinderaker posted the following in an obvious attempt to dismiss the fact that the NY Times reported alledged "secrets", that were already in the public domain for several years:
John Hinderaker's comments seem reasonable...so far...he gives the impression that he is trying to obtain an accurate conclusion about whether the NY Times reporting was already in the public domain when they "disclosed" the "secret" SWIFT program.....but then he sets new hurdles intended to minimize the effect of the existence of the prior UN material on the web that described the U.S. role in the SWIFT program:
John Hinderaker certainly showed us "liberals", a thing or two, didn't he?
He did not count on a "wildcard", like ole "host" on TFP politics, reacting to the republican attacks on the NY Times and the "take it on faith" attitudes of some of the posters who do not support a major newspaper erring on the side of public disclosure in an "alleged" close call, editorial decision to publish news of the SWIFT monitoring program.

I was inspired to silence this noise machine "Op", and I think that I've done it via my own investigating. I've posted the following already, I've seen it cited no where else, and it seems to me that it destroys enough of Hinderaker's debunking of the UN report, and his contention that al Qaeda doesn't read reports like that, and would still not know that "SWIFT" was based in Belgium, if not for the reckless "wartime" reporting of the NY Times.....
Cynthetiq, there are plenty of other places at TFP where it is appropriate to post undocumented opinions. Are you in favor of most participants consistantly posting in an off the cuff manor like that, here at the politics forum, too, even to the point where they ignore requests that they support what they've posted, by directing the rest of us to the sources that influenced their conclusions?

Is it your opinion that John Hinderaker and I have made equally persuasive or accurate presentations? I look forward to reading any attempt to make an argument that the Dec. 2002 UN reference to SWIFT and the Sept. 21, 2001 Baltimore Sun reporting are insufficient to support a conclusion that the SWIFT data monitoring program was already in the public domain for years before the Times reported on it on June 22. The most troubling issue to me is that the POTUS and the VPOTUS either knowingly attempted to falsely attack legitimate news reporting by describing it as revealing "secret" "sources and methods for collecting intelligence", or they genuinely did not know that SWIFT details were in the public domain for years, and didn't even make the effort to check if they were publicly available details before the launched their coordinated "treason" noise barrage.

Pathetically speaking, it would raise my confidence in the competence of Bush/Cheney if we were to find out that the U.S. government was mining data from SWIFT for five years for some other inappropriate, intrusive reason, than that they genuinely were unaware, as John Hinderaker seems to be, that all al Qaeda had to do to become informed about and avoid SWIFT monitoring, was to read the Sept., 21, 2001 Baltimore Sun article, publicly available on the web for almost five years!

Yes, and if the information puts our men overseas (whether military or CIA or ambassadorial) in harm's way then the source should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.... BUT the press can publish it, I would hope they would weigh the consequences before doing so, but they have that option, and I would have the option of buying their product or not. It is not within our government's scope to censor them or stop them in any way.

But see there is no way to put reference links to facts like an uncle of mine beheaded by the Japanese during the occupation of the Philippines. The belief system of an american caught between asian heritage and american dreams, duty to family and press for individualism. No those things all cannot be referenced in some link as to how it helps one form an opinion when someone reads "facts."

as roachboy would say, you seem to see this as a binary principle where there is only one of two answers, either they have facts that support them or they don't. Sometimes opinion has much more than just a few links that you can quote or put together into a thread.

What makes this forum great is the ability for people to have opinion no matter if facts are there to back them up. It is the forum founder's vision that opinion and lifestyle can be expressed without retribution or cause.

Not to mention the fact that in the real world, the political process happens through fact and opinion. If we neglected half of that equation here, we'd be perpetually misunderstanding the world around us. I think that we have to come to grips with the fact that people's irrational biases and prejudices are a valid part of our system. I'm not saying that this is optimal, just that it is. To fail to acknowledge this is to fail to examine the whole picture.

To me, it's disappointing that both of you guys don't even seem to agree with me that it detracts from the potential of this politics forum, when...time after time, the same posters are asked to provide some documentation ....anything.... that could add support for their statements of opinion, and their response is to ignore such requests.

IMO, it would be appropriate, as far as the example that Cynthetiq provided, to request documentation as to whether atrocities, such as the beheading of civilians or of Filipino resistors to the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Phillipines during WWII was widespread or rarely performed by Japanese troops, etc.

In the meantime, I'll just continue my attempts to add facts to these discussions whenever I can, and display them up against the "feelings" based opinions posted on threads, like this one.

Isn't it ironic that Foxnews is <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=newshounds.us%20new%20york%20times%20SWIFT&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wn">tirelessly publicizing</a> the republican campaign against the NY Times reporting of SWIFT monitoring "secrets", when these Five Fox Television affiliates all have, since September 21, 2001, displayed the following story, with this paragraph that seems to destroy Power Line Blog's John Hinderaker's argument? (See my last post....)
Yeah, John Hinderaker.....if these five Fox Television affiliates, linked below, and the <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=shoplocal+bal-te-money21sep21&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&dups=1&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=21">Chicago Tribune</a>, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/bal-te.money21sep21,1,2970618.story">LA Times</a>, and <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=shoplocal+bal-te-money21sep21&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&dups=1&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=21">Orlando Sentinel</a>, et al....had all buried their September 21, 2001 reporting on the U.S. government's monitoring of SWIFT, you, our "leaders", and their republican noise machine would have a persuasive case that the NY Times had exposed, in June of 2006, "secret sources and methods".

If the SWIFT program was outed as far back as 2001, what is the purpose of publishing an article - especially in light of the recent phone-tapping stories - with such ominous headlines:

---
Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror
"A secret program has given counterterrorism officials access to financial records involving thousands of Americans, officials said."
---

Why call it secret if it really wasn't?

Come on host, everyone knows the NYT is anti-war. Fine, theyre anti-war no big deal. But why pretend to be unbiased, why pretend to be upholding the First Amendment and other lofty excuses, when all you are doing is taking a partisan swipe. It insults people's intelligence more than anything else.

Because I do not have to show burden of proof for my feelings or opinions. I don't have to cull up 20 links to back up how my opinion was formed. It's my opinion and that is pretty much the end of the story. I don't have to defend a disertation each and every time I express my opinion in the Politics Forum. In fact, I see that as the strength and potential of this forum that people who do not care to be flamed, harassed, or cajoled into more than just voicing their opinion.

Appropriate to ask sure, but it's equally appropriate for me to NOT respond with links or back up information. That's my choice. My freedom of speech to stay silent is also important.

Or maybe there is no more back up than just the situation of life, I have a cousin who is in Iraq. Whatever feelings and emotions come with that entitle me to my opinion with or without voluminous and copius amounts of links and verbiage.

In fact the very idea that someone can have an opinion in total ignorance is completely fair game.

If you wish to find "back up" documentation, that's up to you, someone is entitled to just post their opinion on it's face without the burden of always having to say or prove why their opinion exists.

And there it is folks....serously. Cyn just placed in context the issues underlying the divide in this political forum. EVERYONE has an opinion:

o·pin·ion Audio pronunciation of "opinion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.


The problems arise when one decides to accept it as fact.....I try very hard to portray my opinion as just that.....opinion. If needed we should all just add the disclaimer (the above is only opinion, any resemblance to actual fact is unimplied, and found only in the mind of the reader)
to remedy the Bias found in any political discussion.....one can hope this is not required in a forum meant for Adults.

I agree that this is where discussion breaks down and the brick wall is hit. My single experience of 'X' has caused me to form an opinion that is now unassailable by any outside source that contradicts my opinion. It gets very tiresome.

What do you mean by,
Haven't I supplied enough links to persuade you that it was outed as far back as 2001?

Doesn't John Hinderaker's partisan hit piece define what it would take to satisfy him that the "secret SWIFT monitoring programs" was actually in the public domain? He may be correct in assuming that terrorists don't read 2002 UN reports, or scour the internet looking for them, and that "liberals" are the ones who do that. I don't think that Hinderaker can make any case that the September 21, 2001 reporting about NSA interception of SWIFT international banking transactions was not widely distributed....the proof that it was is that the "story" is still displayed on all of these news media websites, and has been there for anyone to come across for the last 58 months.

Can you make any case that the NY Times disclosed a secret program?
What have you offered in your post that would increase my knowledge of what actually happened, as far as this coordinated attack from the highest levels of US political leadership, against the NY Times reporting?

The Times at least has a transparent motive for describing their reporting the way they did. They are in the business of selling newspaper advertising, which requires stimulation of their circulation numbers.

What are Bush and Cheney's motives? Are you comfortable with the spectacle of them criticizing the NY Times reporting, as a "disclosure of secrets"? It is interesting that your reaction to me providing you with unique new information about the SWITCH monitoring by the US government, information that you, and obviously John Hinderaker, found nowhere else...is to attack the NY Times and dismiss me as a partisan....

My "partisan" contribution to this forum brought more truth and accuracy to this issue than your president, vice president, and shills like John Hinderaker will ever bring to it. The fault in this does not lie with me, or with the NY Times, because neither you, nor I, knows if the Times reporters approached the white house with questions, and were met with a reaction that SWIFT is a secret source and method that we won't discuss, and you shouldn't publish...
or not. We do know now, with reasonable certainty, because of what I've posted on this forum, that details of SWIFT were in the public domain for nearly five years. We can reasonably suspect that Bush and Cheney are either clueless about that fact, or they used SWIFT monitoring as an excuse to data mine, private, proprietory, international and domestic financial transaction instruction messages, for at least the last 58 months.

Please tell me whether or not you object to me providing you with all of this new information.

The NYT itself doesn't seem to know whether the program was secret or not. These inconsistencies play up issues of credibility on the part of the NYT imo.

Bank Spy Program: A "Secret" or Common Knowledge?
Posted by: Clay Waters
7/5/2006 10:43:44 AM

The Times backpedals a bit from its irresponsible story revealing a successful terrorist surveillance program involving international bank transactions. After playing it up as a lead story June 23, nine days later it's shrugged off as common knowledge.

Reporter Eric Lichtblau (who wrote the article) on CNN’s Reliable Sources last Sunday defending his bank spy scoop:

"I'm not claiming I know the mind of every terrorist, but I am claiming to know exactly what President Bush and his senior aides have said. And when you have senior Treasury Department officials going before Congress, publicly talking about how they are tracing and cutting off money to terrorists, weeks and weeks before our story ran. 'USA Today,' the biggest circulation in the country, the lead story on their front page four days before our story ran was the terrorists know their money is being traced, and they are moving it into -- outside of the banking system into unconventional means. It is by no means a secret."

And: "There was a significant question as to how secret the program was after five years."
– Times Public Editor Barney Calame, July 2.

vs.

"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 lead sentence to the June 23 story by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen uncovering the terrorist spy program, headlined "Bank Data Sifted In Secret By U.S. To Block Terror."

Inaccurate. The press was asked not to publish this story and they did it anyway.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article...SWIFT Deposits
Published 7/5/2006 12:09:19 AM

According to Treasury and Justice Department officials familiar with the briefings their senior leadership undertook with editors and reporters from the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the media outlets were told that their reports on the SWIFT financial tracking system presented risks for three ongoing terrorism financing investigations. Despite this information, both papers chose to move forward with their stories.

"We didn't give them specifics, just general information about regions where the investigations were ongoing, terrorist organizations that we believed were being assisted. These were off the record meetings set up to dissuade them from reporting on SWIFT, and we thought the pressing nature of the investigations might sway them, but they didn't," says a Treasury official.

In fact, according to a Justice Department official, one of the reporters involved with the story was caught attempting to gain more details about one of the investigations through different sources. "We believe it was to include it in their story," says the official.

In the briefings, Treasury and Justice Department officials laid out the challenges law enforcement and intelligence agencies have had with the traditional and still popular hawala Muslim "banking" system, which is dependent more on interpersonal dealings than on institutions and has been prevalent in parts of the world that doesn't understand the Islamic rules. "Since 9/11 we've gotten a lot better at monitoring hawalas," says a Justice Department official. "That success has forced a lot of the money into the institutional or more traditional banking systems. And that's where SWIFT has been particularly helpful."

This is especially true in the regions of the world that cater to large Muslim communities that require banking rules in line with their faith. Increasingly in countries like Malaysia, large, international banks are attracting billions in Muslim funds, trades and transfers of which could be monitored by SWIFT.

According to the Treasury and Justice Department sources, the reporters and editors appeared to have been told that the SWIFT financial monitoring was somehow being undertaken without warrants and without legal supervision. But from the initial briefings, the Times papers were shown information that clearly outlined the search warrant procedures undertaken by the federal government to track some financial transactions.

In fact the SWIFT program released a statement once the Times' stories ran stating that it had negotiated terms of the limited monitoring:

SWIFT negotiated with the U.S. Treasury over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas. Through this process, SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas. Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with.

"We thought that once the reporters and editors understood that one, these were not warrantless searches, and two, that this was a successful program that had netted real bad guys, and three, that it was a program that was helping us with current, ongoing cases, they would agree to hold off or just not do a story," says the U.S. Treasury official. "But it became clear that nothing we said was going sway them. Whomever they were talking to, whoever was leaking the stuff, had them sold on this story."

To that end, the Justice Department has quietly and unofficially begun looking into possible sources for the leak. "We don't think it's someone currently employed by the government or involved in law enforcement or the intelligence community," says another Justice source. "That stuff about 'current and former' sources just doesn't wash. No one currently working on terrorism investigations that use SWIFT data would want to leak this or see it leaked by others. We think we're looking at fairly high-ranking, former officials who want to make life difficult for us and what we do for whatever reasons."

As for the ongoing investigations that the two Times papers were told of, only time will tell if they have been damaged by the reporting. "Let's put it this way, some of these folks probably aren't using their banks anymore, so who knows," says the Treasury source. "Using banks for transfers was easier for them to move funds faster, especially if it was in a part of the world that was heavily Muslim and they thought the money wouldn't draw as much attention there. But groups like al Qaeda aren't about to put expediency before their goals of destroying us, so they will do what they have to do to protect their financing and their operatives. We know that, we just wish the New York Times and Los Angeles Times cared, too."

So you, too, seem to be acknowledging the underlying, partisan swipe of the story. Why should this type of deceitful reporting be immune from criticism? Are you saying "the paper of record", this most scrupulous and ethical of journalistic institutions maybe in the world, places its journalistic neck out for the almighty dollar? At the expense of the truth?

Given the inconsistencies admitted by the NYT reporters as to whether SWIFT was secret or not, I feel the criticism put upon the NYT is warranted. I also question the timing of this story, given the upcoming mid-term elections.

So again, why did the NYT contend they were publishing a story about a SECRET government program? Why did they word the article: "Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror" and go on to describe SWIFT as a secret government program? I thought the NYT argument is that SWIFT wasn't a secret. On has to ask why the NYT went to so much trouble to characterize this story as exposing a SECRET, but now that the shit has hit the fan, they regress into trying to spin it as SWIFT being public domain for 5 years.

It's just a game....."Pin the Tail on the President"

powerclown, is it your position that if a news media outlet intiates a report with an inaccurate or false claim that a government operation is secret, when it actually isn't, it is proper and justifiable conduct on the part of the POTUS and the VEEP, to validate the inaccurate or deceitful reporting by attacking the offending media outlet repeatedly in public statements, with criticism that officially validates the flawed reporting as the reporting of "secret methods and sources", when these elected officials have knowledge that the erroneous reporting did not involve publication of "secret methods and sources", but instead involved reporting of details that were long available in the public domain? Wouldn't our president and vice-president, in those circumstances, either avoid commenting, or if they did, simply inform the public that the claim that a "secret government program" was being reported, was intentionally false or misleading, on the part of the reporting news media outlet?

Wouldn't that be an ethical, forthright, and a fair set of alternatives, when it comes to communicating the reaction of high elected leaders to the American people of such deception by the major media, as well as informing the public about the media outlet's lapse in the integrity of it's reporting?

Instead, doesn't the response to the NY Times' reporting of a SWIFT monitoring, by Bush and Cheney, align them with the Times' reporting deception, since they too, confirm the Times' assertion, to us, that indeed, a secret government monitoring program is being disclosed to us, when that is not what is happening, and Bush and Cheney know it, or should know it?
Confirmation of the latter scenario comes from the circumstances that led to this discussion. You and I did not find out from the Times or from the president or vice-president that the Times did not report about a heretofore
secret government monitoring program, we found out independently, after both the NY Times made the mistake of misreporting the status of the program as "secret" and the President and Vice-President deliberately and repeatedly made statements that reinforced the Times assertions that their article disclosed a secret program. The result is that I view this as another instance, in a long series of instances, where these two leaders seem to choose to mislead the rest of us, even in this case, where their decision seems to be contrary to their own best interests, which seems to me lie in the direction of informing the American public that the Times was reporting no secret on June 22, and then by speculating publicly that.... if the Times was reporting unreliably in that instance, how could the authenticity of their future reporting be relied on?

Just as in addressing the question as to whether Bush and Cheney knew about the existence of the September 21, 2001 SWIFT monitoring reporting before they made attack statements against the NY Times, or whether they were incompetent because they did not know that the SWIFT monitoring was info that existed in the public domain, and approved the continuation of the program for 58 months because they didn't know, I don't have a hunch, even after observing these two "leaders" as they've served 66 months in their offices, whether they were too incompetent to respond to the NY Times reporting in their own best interest, as I described above, or whether they attacked the Times as a smokescreen to distract attention from some other activity that they are still concealing. Since they both have devoted their terms in office to a priority of keeping me and every other member of the public as uninformed about their plans and priorities as they possibly could, I am inclined to believe that they are motivated to attack the Times as a tactic of distraction, rather than because they are too incompetent to simply expose the Times flawed reporting, damage the newspaper's reputation, and impress us all with their prompt and forthright communication about a report that they competently defused and dismissed.

But they didn't react that way, did they? So how can you regard Bush and Cheney's part in this in such a passive and incurious way, while you direct all of your disapproval and disdain at the NY Times.....like....Bush and
Cheney have done!

I'll agree that the NY Times June 22 article intro that called the SWIFT program a <b>"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"....</b> is misleading to the point of being a lie, if the NY Times editor knew before June 22 about the December, 2002 UN report paragraph #31, and about the U.S. SWIFT monitoring details still retrievable today, on more than 50 websites, where they apparently resided since they were reported on September 21, 2001.

We can assume that Time's "Blog of the Year 2004" founder, John Hinderaker didn't know about the September, 21, 2001 reporting, either, and....as with the NY Times, it should be his business to know that....because now he seems very foolish when his attempt to minimize the influence of that UN report on terrorist financial transaction methods, is examined next to the fact that the September, 21, 2001 reporting was out in the public realm and widely available.....for 58 months.....

I would never accept at face value, without a thorough independent fact check, anything that John Hinderaker states on his CNN appearances, or on his blog. I find it ironic, that for you current purpose, you hold the "authority" or "reliability" of NY Times reporting, up, to any stature or respect, at all.

I doubt that you, or Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney, turn to the NY Times as a prime source for your news intake...we know from Cheney's own statements and a recent report about his accomodation requirements, that Fox news is his prime source for news. You do, however, seem to want to make a convincing pitch that you somehow expected more from the NY Times. You take offense at their June 22 reporting because you say, an important, mid-term election, that incidentally does not include candidacies of either Bush or Cheney, would take place <b>20 weeks after</b> the questionable NY Times reporting about a "secret" data mining program.

IMO, Bush and Cheney's roles in the attack on the NY Times reporting, cannot be considered in a vacuum, and John Hinderaker is much closer in stature and influence (64 million hits on Power Line Blog's website counter....) to the NY Times, than either the Times or Hinderaker is to the stature and influence of Bush or Cheney. There is at least equal motivation for Bush and Cheney to attack the NY Times, in view of their reporting on warrantless and FISA-less NSA data collection, that Bush specifically asked the Times' editor, not to publish, as their is to motivate the Times to describe SWIFT as "secret" because of a chance to negatively influence republican election prospects, 20 weeks in the future.

What you avoid discussing...and I specifically asked you to do so....is whether you agree that Bush and Cheney are the elected officials who run one of the three branches of the U.S. federal government, and indisputably the most powerful one, at that, and thus, they are accountable and responsible in a much more signifigant way....to all of us, than the NY Times or John Hinderaker are. You give the impression that you absolve them completely, because the NY Times reporting has somehow, vicitmized them, and provided them the unquestioned right to attack the NY Times for "disclosing secret methods and sources", as Cheney put it, and when Larry King asked Bush about what the NY Times did, Bush declared that "disclosure is disclosure."

powerclown, you and I seem to be in agreement now, that the disclosure of the SWIFT data mining by the US government. conducted for the last 58 months, was not disclosure of a secret. We disagree that what should follow, are explanations from Bush and Cheney as to why they attacked the NY Times for "disclosure"....they should be able to tell us much, since they are unrestrained from discussing the disclosure of info that was long in the public domain. We should be given an opportunity to ask them if they knew of the existance of the September 21, 2001 reporting about SWIFT monitoring, or about the December, 2002 UN report that described SWIFT, before they launched their criticism of the NY Times. They should also answer the question, if they did know, why SWIFT monitoring continued for 58 months, when the existence and description of the monitoring of terrorists program was known in the public domain. Why did they bother to continue it when anybody who should have had an interest in knowing to avoid SWIFT scrutiny, could easily know, and what other justification was there to continue SWIFT monitoring for so long a time period, and was the info that was data mined, used for any other purposes by US agencies?

If they didn't know that SWIFT monitoring was long described in the public domain, how do they explain their lack of knowing as anything other than incompetence, and inattention to a condition that must have signifigantly degraded the expense and justification of continuing SWIFT data mining. They should also answer questions as to whether info obtained via SWIFT monitoring was obtained without warrants or with warrants too unspecific to yield evidence that was admissible in criminal courts.

I come away from this exchange with you, powerclown, appreciating that you made the time and effort to engage in a real discussion of these issues, but it concerns me that you seem to demand so much accountability, explanation, and integrity of the NY Times editors, a newspaper that you had little regard before June 22, and even less for now.....and so little of any of these three traits/responses from either Mr. Bush or from Mr. Cheney, regarding their decisions, actions, and comments, in this matter, a matter of the management of national security policy and operations, during a U.S. war on terror.

I would say that once the NYT threw this article onto its front page, after being asked not to by the administration, the damage was done. I don't think any president in any country should be forced by its own press into exposing to the outside world each and every security program it has. The NYT made a perfectly legal, seemingly effective financial tracking program the issue...Bush was pissed about it and I don't blame him.

Regarding Hinderaker, I've read his rantings and I think they're ridiculous. And I do think this is all about the november elections. Bush was on immigration not too long ago, his poll numbers rose. It was the press' turn to play.

I find it funny how people change their tune so easily depending on party affiliation. Many people on this forum have argued that the Plame case wasn't a leak because it was public knowledge and now they claim the reverse that this wasn't public knowledge and therefore is irresponsible reporting. To me they both were both at the same level of public knowlege, that is they wern't. Even though some astute person could have figured out both things it would have took a lot of work, digging, and probably some luck. What the press did is bring both cases into the mainstream. To me it comes down to what was leaked and is it something that I should know. In the case of the plame case I don't believe that information was in any way important for people to know. That report was nothing more than a retaliation for standing against the administration. This leak however is potentially illegal and deserves public oversight because the president himself tried to prevent any oversight possibly breaking the law himself. This is only a case of national security in so much as protecting the rights of all Americans from an overreaching administration that continues to attempt to consolodate it's power throwing away everything that our founding fathers worked so hard to achieve. If we let our rights be taken away then the terrorists have already won.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202689,00.html

Side comment: jeez - get a load of these guys' egos. I disagree with this part of Hoekstra's statement:

I think the personal affront that he feels is implied is far less important than any of the other potential issues here.

Forgive the length, but its' worth the read....I have a passion for wading through the bullshit that I witness every day in America. Lots of strong opinions, but IMO, it's rare to find anyone with one that is on track. More than half of congress was on the wrong side of this one....
powerclown, you have argued that President Bush is somehow, a "victim" of the NY Times, partisan bias and pre-election sabotage of republicans running for office in the november, mid-term elections. The Washington Post described the "secret government monitoring" of global banking transactions, and CIA and Treasury agents' intent to "plug in" to the "computerized systems" of SWIFT specifically, in an August 28, 1998, article, yet reported, as the NY Times did, nearly eight years later, about "the secret NSA and Treasury programs", or that the WSJ editorial stated:
Trusted "sources", WSJ and Foxnews both revealed that this is a Bush/Cheney/Rove "Op" that we watched play out, or I'm wrong, and we're actually watching an administration that has classified and held secret, so much information, and so many initiatives, that they reflexively label everything that major news media question them about, to get "their side" of the story, as "secret".

This "Op" is by no means, restricted to the NY Times. The background story on the NY Times decision to publish their "secret government monitoring" disclosure, was that the LA Times was also preparing a similar report. On June 30, executive editors from both newspapers published this unusual Op-Ed:
Here is the June 23, 2006, reporting by the Washington Post:
<h3>Not only was the bank monitoring program not "secret" as the government has maintained, and leaked to the WSJ, it was disclosed in 1998. </h3>
As we see documented above, it flies in the face of credulity that Bush and Cheney are the "victims" of partisan reporting tactics by the New York Times.
Four of the most prominent American newspapers were told that publication of the U.S. CIA and Treasury Dept. banking surveillance of SWIFT financial transactions was "secret". The LA & NY Times decided to publish the information that they had both gathered via investigative reporting. The Bush administration retaliated, as the WSJ clearly admitted, and Foxnews' Bret Baier confirmed, by feeding their version of the story to WSJ and Washington Post, to rob the Times of an "exclusive".

The problem is that the SWIFT monitoring clearly was not secret, it was information previously in the public domain, reported most clearly by the Washington Post in August, 1998, and briefly described in a September, 2001 report, written by a current NY Times reporter, Scott Shane, who worked for the Tribune owned, Baltimore Sun, at that time. The LA Times, also Tribune owned, and, along with the NY Times, an independent investigator and discloser of the "secret" SWIFT data mining program, has had Scott Shane's 2001 SWIFT reporting, up on it's website for...58 months.

If this is not enough to influence anyone who was convinced by powerclown that Bush is a "victim" of the NY Times, consider the opening quote box on this post....the one that describes both republican controlled houses of congress halting all other legislative business to hound, threaten, and condemn....the New York Times.

If you support any of these congress folk or this administration, please state your case as to what I've gotten wrong in my posts, and what powerclown has gotten right. IMO, this incident is worth focussing on. It exposes the obsessive and vigorous agenda of a secretive administration, at war with the press. The press, as I've documented....three major newspapers, all published the administration's claim that the CIA/Treasury monitoring of SWIFT computers was a "secret" program. The entire republican congress bought that "line", and went with it. Two of the newspapers, the LA Times, and the Washington Post, have been documented, in this post, previously publishing details of SWIFT, the Washington Post in the most similar detail to today's alledged "secrets". The NY Times, convicted by powerclown, as "victimizing" Mr. Bush, has merely been associated with past reporting of SWIFT....by me..
because I discovered that one of their current reporters, Scott Shane, who didn't author the June 22 reporting on the "secret program", did mention SWIFT in the 2001 article that appears to this day on the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fbal-te.money21sep21%2C1%2C2970618.story&btnG=Google+Search">LA Times website</a>, when he worked another LA Times/Tribune newspaper.
(To make it work, the LA Times link resolves as a google search result first.)

The WSJ, by it's own admission, was fed and then published the Bush admin. "spin" on the story that the LA & NY Times filed from their own investigative reporting.

Actually, you have got it wrong here. It's called no prior restraint. Under the First Amendment, publication cannot be restrained or halted. Only after the fact, that media can be held accountable for any wrong doing/misprints.

Host, doesn't that Washington Post article effectively shoot down the "it was classified" argument? Which means that any vigilent al Qaeda members already knew about the program? Which means that the program going on since 1998 would have been useless in trying to aprehend terrorism? Which means that the government has had a domestic treasury spying program that has had nothing to do with terrorism or stopping terrorists for almost the past 8 years?

Interesting.