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

DID THE NEW YORK TIMES CROSS THE LINE BETWEEN A FREE PRESS AND TREASON?

Liberal columnist Mort Kondracke* echoed the sentiments of many Americans: The New York Times leaked information about a top secret banking operation, which was aimed at stopping terrorist financing and money transfers, because of their hatred for President George W. Bush.

President Bush implored the Times not to run their story, but the editors decided to disregard the presidential request. (One cannot help but wonder: If President Bill Clinton were our Commander-in-Chief today, would the editors at the New York Times comply with his request to kill the story? Most probably.)

Americans following the aftermath of the Times leak knew that part of the news story.

However, what most didn’t know was that the co-chairmen of the 9-11 Commission — Tom Keane and Lee Thompson — also contacted the New York Times and told them disclosure of the Treasury Department’s counterterrorism operation would hurt national security. The editors at the Times couldn’t care less and disregarded their plea, as well.

“In the past, I believe the New York Times got too close to the line separating honest journalism and betrayal. Now I think they crossed that line,” said a former intelligence officer who now works as an undercover detective for a large city police department.

“I also don’t believe someone from the [Treasury Department] leaked the information to the Times. I believe one of the lawmakers — either in the House or Senate — who opposes the war on terrorism leaked the information,” he added.

As yet, there are no comments emanating from Washingtion, DC regarding a full investigation of the leak. One source says he hopes the Justice Department assigns a special prosecutor to look into the case.

“We wasted millions of dollars on the so-called CIA leak case; how about investigating a serious leak that actually does impact [upon] US national security?” he added.

So far, the most vocal member of the Bush Administration regarding the New York Times and Los Angeles Times stories is Vice President Dick Cheney. “These [were] good, solid, sound programs. They [were] conducted in accordance with the laws of the land,” Cheney said.

“They are carried out in a manner that is fully consistent with the constitutional authority of the president,” Mr. Cheney said. He also said that he found it “offensive” that newspapers would publicize the secret program.

“What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some in the media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people,” Cheney said with obvious anger in his voice.

The New York Times stood by its coverage saying editors had judged after careful deliberations that releasing the information served the public’s interest. They didn’t explain in what way the disclosure of top secret information served the public interest, unless they include terrorists, our homegrown insurgents in congress, left-wing Stalinist groups, and your garden variety Bush-haters.

It’s been said before: Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups don’t need to spend money on intelligence gathering and analysis. Members of the US news media are de-facto intelligence agents for them.

RELATED:
Enemies Are Reading…
Austin Bay: “An Inadequate Apologie From The Axis of Abuse”

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

DEAN TOUTS DEMOCRAT'S PLAN

DNC Chairman Howard Dean touted the Democrats’ agenda in their weekly radio address. Here’s some of his key points:

“Democrats are determined to set a different course for our Nation, to tell the truth to the American people, to save the lives of our American soldiers and keep America safe.”

If Democrats are so determined to tell the truth, then why isn’t anyone chastising John Murtha for the whoppers he’s told recently? Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi telling him to stop using the line that an IED killed Iraqi civilians? No one said the IED killed innocent Iraqi civilians. As the Marines reported, the IED killed Marine Sgt. Miguel Terrazas. Why doesn’t Ms. Pelosi tell Mr. Murtha that there really was a gunfight that night in Haditha?

Mr. Murtha has put American soldiers at greater risk because he’s told those whoppers again & again. Soldiers on the ground in Iraq tell their stateside relatives that they’re at greater risk. Mr. Dean would be well advised to keep his mouth shut if his mission is to convince people of the latest Democratic nonsense.

“A majority of Democrats have called upon the President to change course in Iraq.”

TRANSLATION: A majority of Democrats have called on the President to change course before we win in Iraq so that Democrats don’t look like total idiots.

“Democrats have also offered a plan that asks the president to responsibly redeploy our troops.”

Mr. Dean, it’s impossible to “responsibly redeploy our troops” because the end result of Democratic-style redeployment is what most people know as cut-and-run. It’s a plan for defeat, not victory. Democrats got their way with Vietnam, the only war we ever lost. Republicans refuse to let you do to the patriotic Iraqi people what the counterculture crowd did to the courageous Vietnamese people. Period!

“The phased re-deployment strategy proposed by Democrats this week calls on the President to do the following:
– First, work with the Government of Iraq to begin a phased redeployment of United States troops from Iraq by the end of this year;”

Doesn’t this fool pay attention? He should read Mowaffak al-Rubaie’s Washington Post op-ed to familiarize himself with the plan that President Bush has agreed to with the sovereign Iraqi government. Here’s the most important statement Mr. Rubaie makes, in the first paragraph no less:

“There is, however, an unofficial “road map” to foreign troop reductions that will eventually lead to total withdrawal of U.S. troops. This road map is based not just on a series of dates but, more important, on the achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq.”

It’d be nice if Mr. Dean paid attention to that roadmap instead of blustering on about the Democrats’ plan.

– Second, submit a plan to Congress by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;

Mr. Dean, see above statement by Mr. Rubaie.

– Third, we have also told the President that we demand accountability for the resources being spent in Iraq. The cost of the Iraq war will be at least one trillion dollars, enough to finance a health care program for every single American, including our veterans coming home from the war.

Who are you to demand accountability for the resources being spent there? You don’t have a vote in appropriating money to the war effort. Democratic senators and representatives do. It’s their responsibility to make sure the money’s being spent on the highest priorities in Iraq before they appropriate the money. If they aren’t doing that before the vote is taken, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

– Fourth, expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training, providing logistical support, protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities.

Seriously, have you paid even a minute amount of attention to Iraq? I’d seriously doubt it based on this statement because we’ve been in a mostly logistical and support role for at least six months now. If you’re finally figuring this out now, snap with it. You’re ages behind, which isn’t surprising.

– Finally, our plan recognizes that during and after the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a non-military effort to actively support reconstruction, governance, and a durable political solution in Iraq.

Again, where have you been? Mr. Dean, is it that you only pay attention to the things revolving around your head in your make-believe universe? Get a clue.

Most of the ‘Democratic plan’ has been in place for half a year or better, with the lone exception being setting timelines. And that ain’t gonna happen until there’s icicles hanging from the ceiling in Hades.

We see an America where we are all on the same team again, working together to deal with problems American Families face, Defense, Security, Health Care, Jobs.

The only division in America is the Democratic-caused division. The Bush administration is dealing with defending this nation and providing for true national security. The Bush economic plan dug us out of a recession and 9/11. Since then, it’s creating jobs at a rate comparable to the Clinton record.

Simply put, it’s time for Mr. Dean’s Democrats to take the blinders off and to stop Bush-hating.

HOW ABOUT A NICE GLASS OF...........

By Michelle Malkin

The New York Times and their traitorous, leaking sources have done it again. (Hat tip: LGF) This time they're broadcasting classified information on troop levels. Hey, Bill Keller--al Qaeda thanks you:

The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007...

...General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.

"Closely held secret." Not. Anymore.

(Ed Morrissey thinks it's a controlled leak. But the law, as I've noted before, does not distinguish between "good" and "bad" leaks, "controlled" or "uncontrolled" ones. As Ed rightly notes, whatever the case, "the New York Times has once again specialized in publishing classified material on a story with only marginal news value.")

Special coverage at The Truth Laid Bear. And now...

Time for Round III from the Anti-Blabbermouth Army of Photoshoppers:

Slublog:

Impacted Wisdom Truth:

Richard Pucillo:

Are We Lumberjacks?:

George Ratton:

Russell Paine:

Larry Sweeney:

Kathy Yoder:

Doug Morris:

Blogs of War:

Anonymous:

John Schrenko:

Verum Serum:

Darleen's Place:

Solomonia:

Jane:

Rick A.:

Six Meat Buffet:

Dan Riehl:

Carl McCaskey:

***
Previous:

More blabbermouth posters
Messages for the blabbermouths
Backlash against the blabbermouths
NYTimes blabbermouths strike again

NY TIMES BLABBERMOUTHS STRIKE AGAIN

By Michelle Malkin

***update: The Los Angeles Times piles on and flaps its mouth, too...The story is the blabbermouth media's refusal to act responsibly and learn when to shut up...***

Dammit. These people don't know when to stop. The anonymous leak-addicted NYTimes tag team of Eric Lichtblau and James Risen is at it again. Their front-page, splashy piece posted on the web tonight and top-linked on Drudge:

Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror

"Secret?" Not anymore.

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 program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

"Hidden?" Not anymore.

The blabbermouths who have just blown the cover on this program don't seem to care that they've sabotaged a successful counterterrorism tool:

[The program] has provided clues to money trails and ties between possible terrorists and groups financing them, the officials said. In some instances, they said, the program has pointed them to new suspects, while in others it has buttressed cases already under investigation.

Among the successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said.

In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said.

The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, prosecutors said.

In terrorism prosecutions, intelligence officials have been careful to "sanitize," or hide the origins of evidence collected through the program to keep it secret, officials said.

Now all their careful efforts have been destroyed by Bush-deranged reporters who fashion themselves the true protectors of America. Here's editor Bill Keller explaning why he ignored the Bush administration's argument for keeping the legal program secret:

Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

"Public interest," my you-know-what.

As Stephen Spruiell at The Media Blog points out (hat tip: Allah):

According to the NYT's own reporting, the program is legal. The program is helping us catch terrorists. The administration has briefed the appropriate members of Congress. The program has built-in safeguards to prevent abuse. And yet, with nothing more than a vague appeal to the "public interest" (which apparently is not outweighed in this case by the public's interest in apprehending terrorists), the NYT disregards all that and publishes intimate, classified details about the program. Keller and his team really do believe they are above the law. When it comes to national security, it isn't the government that should decide when secrecy is essential to a program's effectiveness. It is the New York Times.

National security be damned. There are Pulitzers to be won.

And more fat book advances to be chased, no doubt.

***

The NYTimes has in-house produced video showcasing Licthblau as he "reveals a secret Bush administration program to access to financial records."

Aren't we so proud of ourselves?

***

ABP:

Can anyone tell me why this program is a matter of public interest? The monitoring is done overseas, and does not involve monitoring purely domestic transactions (although I wouldn’t see the problem if it did). An outside auditor was hired to safeguard against abuses, and under International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the President had the “investigate, regulate or prohibit” foreign transactions in responding to “an unusual and extraordinary threat.”

But now, thanks to fine folks at The New York Times, yet another effective tool in the war on terror has been exposed to the enemy, despite the fact that no one can point to any legal problem with the program and that it has been effective in capturing those who would kill us...Much like the NSA Terrorist Surveillance program, I predict the Dems and the MSM will overplay their hand. Americans with common sense and who actually want to win the war on terror won’t be able to see what the big deal is about this program, and in fact would probably be upset if we weren’t doing it.

Bryan Preston:

Call me crazy, but since the program is legal and since the administration argues it has helped stop terror attacks, isn’t the weight of the public’s interest in this story on the side of keeping the program under wraps so that it can continue to stop terrorists?

When the terrorists finally do succeed, will the Times rush out with an apology for having outed two major anti-terror programs that just might have helped stop it–if they had remained secret? Of course not. We all know what the Times will do–blame Bush.

Patterico:

I am biting down on my rage right now. I’ll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I’ll say only this: it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous...The article is likely to do far more than “jeopardize [the program’s] effectiveness.” It’s clear to me that the publication of the article will shut it down entirely. The article says that, in 2003, officials of the banking cooperative “were discussing pulling out because of their concerns about legal and financial risks if the program were revealed, one government official said.” But our top officials did a “full-court press” and promised to institute even tighter controls, which had apparently been quite successful.

Now that the program has been splashed all over the pages of the New York Times, I think that Swift’s era of cooperation with the U.S. Government is over.

What exactly is in the public interest about revealing classified information that has been successful in tracking and apprehending murderous terrorists?

Jeff Goldstein:

[W]hat is most ironic about these leak stories is that dubious decision-making by today’s “adversarial” media will doubtless create a climate in which it is far more likely that future administrations will take extraordinary measures to keep information secret. All because some in the press have forgotten that with access and freedom comes great responsibility. That the NYT is willing to trade that responsibility for a “scoop” it pretends is in the “public interest” is, frankly, embarrassing—and one of the reasons Americans are increasingly unhappy with the mainstream press.

And in the long-run, we could find ourselves less informed because of it. Which is a net negative for a truly free society.

***

Contact info:

Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com or faxing (212)556-3622.

Snail mail:

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

The Los Angeles Times thumbs its nose and national security:

Administration officials were concerned that news reports of the program would diminish its effectiveness and could harm overall national security.

"It's a tough call; it was not a decision made lightly," said Doyle McManus, the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau chief. "The key issue here is whether the government has shown that there are adequate safeguards in these programs to give American citizens confidence that information that should remain private is being protected."

Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the newspaper's reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview.

"They were quite vigorous, they were quite energetic. They made a very strong case," he said.

And they blew the Bush administration off anyway.

Write the Los Angeles Times here.

***

Round-ups: Instapundit * Pajamas Media

***
Previous:

Red Alert: Chicken Littles on the loose
How the NYTimes is ringing in 2006
Take a leak
Finally: Justice Dept. opens NSA leak probe
How to stop dangerous press leaks
Pulitzer Day

Jihad In Miami

By Michelle Malkin

You've seen tonight's headlines: FBI detains 7 in domestic terror probe

Seven people are in custody after a sweep by law enforcement authorities in connection with an alleged plot against targets that may have included the Sears Tower, officials told CNN on Thursday.

Officials said no weapons or bomb-making materials had been found in the searches in the Miami area by FBI and state and local law enforcement officials. The city is under no imminent threat, according to the FBI.

Law enforcement sources told CNN that the arrests disrupted what may have been the early stages of a domestic terrorist plot to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois, the FBI building in Miami, and possibly other targets

Allah has all the late-breaking developments, video, and early blog reax. More coverage: ABC * Miami Herald.

Some of the suspects are black Muslim radicals.

Law enforcement sources told CNN that some of the suspects are members of a radical African-American Muslim group and that at least one had taken "an al Qaeda oath." They had carried out surveillance on the Sears Tower and FBI building in Miami, the sources said.

Sources told CNN that the arrests culminated a monthslong undercover operation. The suspects believed they were dealing with an al Qaeda operative, but the person was actually a government informant, the sources said...The FBI said one search warrant was executed in a warehouse near a housing project in Liberty City, a predominantly black and low-income area of Miami.

There have been several black Muslim jihadi plots and prosecutions before and after 9/11.

In April 2003, James Ujaama pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to provide goods and services to the Taliban.

The Portland 7 consisted of several black Muslim converts:

Most recently, black Muslim inmates at New Folsom State Prison in California who swore allegiance to Jam'iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh (Arabic for "Assembly of Authentic Islam" and known as JIS) were implicated in a jihadi plot to plan attacks on synagogues and a military recruiting center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Gates of Vienna and the Politics of CP have reported extensively on the homegrown black Muslim terrorist group, al Fuqra.

Black militant Muslim American Clement Rodney Hampton-El was convicted of 3 counts including seditious conspiracy, bombing conspiracy, and attempted bombing in the 1993 World Traade Center bomb plot.

And don't forget freelancers like the Beltway snipers. And the old school black Muslim thugs (and Jesse Jackson pals) of the Chicago-based El Rukn. Ken Timmerman has the goods.

Like I say: It's the jihad, stupid.

***

Bob Owens catches the Democratic Underground already playing the race card.

Reader Martin sends a reminder about this March 2006 story about Sears Tower casing that was pooh-poohed.