EXPOSING BILL KELLER'S ARGUMENTS

That’s essentially what this letter from Treasury Secretary John Snow does.

* * *

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

HOORAY JOHN SNOW!!! Congratulations on giving Bill Keller a much-deserved tongue-lashing. His ‘I’ll decide what to publish and what not to’ attitude potentially puts us in danger.

One of the most important things that this letter does is that it calls Bill Keller a liar for saying that the government gave a half-hearted defense of why the program’s existence shouldn’t be exposed. This proves a suspicion of mine: Bill Keller is nothing more than Howell Raines without previous baggage.

Furthermore, it’s insulting and scary that the NY Times and other media organizations put ‘the story’ ahead of national security. Let’s remember that the Constitution gives the Executive Branch sole authority on classifying and declassifying information and programs. By definition, that means that the Founding Fathers didn’t confer on the NY Times and other organizations the authority to classify and declassify programs like the TFTP.

Here’s Hugh Hewitt’s take on the constitutionality of prosecuting journalists:

Bill Keller’s letter was wholly unresponsive to the many criticisms that have come in at the paper after Friday’s story. And I would like to begin by just making three key points. First, media does not have an exemption from the national security laws of the United States. There is no such thing. There is no special status. They’re just like every other citizen walking around.
Number two, the national security laws of the United States prohibit, upon pain of criminal penalty, the release of certain types of information. Whether or not Friday’s story contained that information is still being looked in to, but it’s possible.

That’s why I’m all for sending a chill into the the Agenda Media’s collective spine when they’re breaking the national security laws.

HEWITT: A couple of responses, Wolf. First, what Geneva said was wholly unresponsive to the very narrow point I’m making. I am talking about the national security laws in a time of war. There is no exemption for media. They are free to publish whatever they want because of papers, cases like the Pentagon Papers. But as pointed out over and over again in the courts, if they violate the laws, they don’t have a special status. They don’t have a special pleading. Geneva is not better than any person viewing this show right now. Americans have to oblige themselves to do the law.
It won’t chill whistle-blowing. It will not in any way corral the legitimate functions of the press. It’s a very narrow point, which is that they cannot help Americans get killed by publishing the most sensitive information. And as for the chilling effect, I want it to chill these sorts of leaks, because they’re illegal and they endanger American lives.

The NY Times will say that they have a First Amendment right to write whatever they want. I wonder how they’d respond to the President’s constitutional duty to “protect and defend” the US against enemies, foreign and domestic. Does the First Amendment give the NY Times the right to interfere with the President’s constitutionally enumerated duty to protect us from foreign enemies? I’d bet that the Supreme Court would vote that down by at least a 7-2 margin.