Byron York writes in National Review that Tom Kean, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, fears that the terrorist finance tracking program, which was very effective and completely legal, is over:
Thomas Kean, the co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, was briefed several weeks ago about the Treasury Department’s terrorist-finance program, and after the session, Kean says, “I came away with the idea that this was a good program, one that was legal, one that was not violating anybody’s civil liberties…and something the U.S. government should be doing to make us safer.”
Kean tells National Review Online that the New York Times’s decision to expose the terrorist finance effort — Kean called Times executive editor Bill Keller in an attempt to persuade him not to publish — has done terrible damage to the program. “I think it’s over,” Kean says. “Terrorists read the newspapers. Once the program became known, then obviously the terrorists were not going to use these methods any more.”
There are a variety of ways to transport or transfer money; electronic transfers are just one means of doing it. Now the terrorists will find other ways to make their financial transactions, which will make it more difficult for us to track them.
The exposure of the terrorist-finance program was particularly troubling to Kean because the 9/11 Commission had given high marks to the administration’s efforts in the area of terrorist financing…the only area in which the administration scored an “A” — actually an “A-” — was in its efforts on terrorist financing. “The U.S. has won the support of key countries in tackling terrorism finance,” the commissioners wrote, “though there is still much to do in the Gulf States and in South Asia. The government has made significant strides in using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool.”
Now, a major part of that effort appears to have been compromised. “That’s the way it is in this war,” says Kean. “There are a number of programs we are using to try to disrupt terrorist activities, and you never know which one is going to be successful. We knew that this one already had been.”
Not anymore, thanks to the New York Times and other media outlets.
Let’s not forget that shortly after 9/11 the editors of the New York Times demanded that the Bush Administration follow the terrorists’ financial records as one method of fighting terror:
The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America’s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies….If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.
Isn’t interesting that the New York Times killed the very program it demanded President Bush create. And how will the Times react if the US were to be hit by terrorists again? How else – by blaming the Bush Administration for failing to prevent the attack.
F15C BULLSEYE I meant..44 always has bad timing.
F15C
You posted: “Have you no semi-witty rejoinders about the statments made in the CIA report about how some of our newspapers helped the USSR, and currently are read ‘voraciously’ by our current enemies? I’d really like you to counter what they said.”
No, I don’t. But I do question the reference to helping the Soviets, given that they obviously did win the Cold War and we all are now speaking Russian.
BTW Curious, the reference to the Soviets. Who are they & where are they now?
914: No probz. 44 *is* bad timing. 🙂
F15C
Like you said, “But whether on purpose or as a side effect of trying to ‘get Bush’, they are providing aid to the enemy.”
I can just imagine George III saying the same thing after the publication of Common Sense an the Declaration of Independence.
Pretty poor response Mak. I expected better. If you don’t know who the Soviets were and their importance in 20th century history, google the terms. You should have done that before typing that last repsonse. It might have helped your credibility.
A sarcastic response, to be effective and not make you look incapable of addressing the point, must actually – well address the point. Your attempt to say that the leaking of classified information by American newspapers did not stop the Soviets from losing the cold war and collapsing as a nation is ridiculous on the face of it.
But at least you acknowledge the obvious that American newspapers do help the enemy by exposing classified information. The only question we need to debate is to what degree they help the enemy.
Mak: “I can just imagine George III saying the same thing after the publication of Common Sense an (sic) the Declaration of Independence.”
Huh-what? You lost me on that one…
Are you saying that the NYT are trying to break away from George Bush’s rule or something…?
Also, do you seriously want us to believe that you believe the NYT is not doing everything in their power to ‘get Bush’?
News Flash: Of course they are. I don’t have a problem with that per se. They can write nasty things about Bush all they want. But I draw the line at trying to undermine the president by undermining the work of the good people who have been tasked with doing the real day-in and day-out work of tracking and finding terrorists to stop them before they can kill more people. That is simply wrong.
No, I don’t. But I do question the reference to helping the Soviets, given that they obviously did win the Cold War and we all are now speaking Russian.
As pointed out in another thread here — incompetence is a REALLY poor excuse.
It was the NY Times that basically lied about Stalin’s show trials and purges.
I can just imagine George III saying the same thing after the publication of Common Sense an the Declaration of Independence.
Considering that, in both documents mentioned, they were specifically trying to “get” George III, you aided his point.
I’m sure it was intentional, though.
-=Mike
F15C and Mike “SS”
You both are oblivious to either satire or sarcasm.
Add irony, as well
F16C
Apart from your CIA quote, just illustrate how the American press gave aid & confort to the Soviets.
And who made that CIA statement? Was that the conclusion of some panel study, and if so, from where did it come and upon what is it based?
Let’s have a little more documentation of and justification for that statement rather than simply a citaion as a CIA statement rendered in quote marks.
F15C
Went back & read your CIA quote and see that it is from some report.
What I’d say in response to that is, had the CIA been operating in the Soviet Union, they wouldn’t have had that problem. It’s part of the risk of living in an open society.
I’d rather live in a free society than leave the choice of what I can read or know to a KGB.
If you want an unfettered intelligence agency making the absolute determination as to what info you are entitled to have, then welcome to the Totalitarian State. I’ll trust the Press before giving up all control to a secret agency.
Mak: “Apart from your CIA quote, just illustrate how the American press gave aid & confort to the Soviets.”
(First, to clarify, I stated they provided aid, not aid and comfort. And for the record, I don’t believe the NYT is guilty of treason.)
So, you mean apart from them exposing classifed information to the Soviets for which “Moscow was very appreciative”. Here’s the link to the CIA report (which I tried to put in the last comment, but Wizbang’s comment checker barfed on it for some reason…)
http://www.odci.gov/csi/kent_csi/docs/v47i1a04p.htm .
Here is another exerpt to illustrate an actual example of how the American press aided America’s enemies:
“Soviet ICBM testing, 1958. A New York Times story on 31 January 1958 reported that the United States was able to monitor the eight-hour countdown broadcasts for Soviet missile launches from Tyuratam (now Baykonur), Kazakhstan, which provided enough lead time to dispatch US aircraft to observe the splashdowns and, thus, collect data used to estimate the accuracy of the intercontinental ballistic missiles. Following publication of the article, Moscow cut the countdown broadcasts to four hours, too little time for US aircraft to reach the landing area. Occurring in the midst of the missile-gap controversy, the publication of the press item left President Eisenhower livid, according to Wayne Jackson in Allen Welsh Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence (July 1973, declassified history, Volume IV, pp. 29-31, in Record Group 263, National Archives). According to the same source, some intelligence was lost forever, and, to recoup the remainder, the US Air Force had to rebuild an Alaskan airfield at a cost of millions of dollars”
You are quibbling. Big time. (defn: an evasion of the point of an argument by raising irrelevant distinctions or objections) That is a primary trait of the common blog troll. You can do better.
You can try all you want to vapidly deconstruct everything I or anyone else supply as supporting data, but it changes none of the facts of the matter. The cited event above is but one of many. The hard, cold reality is that American newspapers have provided classified information to the enemy that has undoubtedly aided said enemy to some degree. I know you don’t like that, and neither do I, but that is reality.
So, if you have proof that the American press has never helped our enemies by releasing classified information, then please explain.
Mak44: “What I’d say in response to that is, had the CIA been operating in the Soviet Union, they wouldn’t have had that problem. It’s part of the risk of living in an open society.
I’d rather live in a free society than leave the choice of what I can read or know to a KGB.”
What a load of specious crap.
We live in the most open society on the planet and in the history of the world. But that does not mean you or I have a right to know everything the goverment is doing. There are laws and regulations (all constitutional and copasetic) that support that concept and for good reason. This is kindergarten level stuff and certainly not news. What is that so difficult for you to understand? Your response would have us believe that you just found out day-before-yesterday that some of what our government does is not available for public viewing and you are righteously indignant about that.
Our founding fathers believed in strong intelligence operations and I bet you’d be surprised how involved they were in those operations. Google George Washington (our first intelligence officer), John Jay (the father of counterintelligence), and Benjamin Franklin (a master of covert action).
And that’s just for starters. Our history is rife with spys! Run like your hair is on fire!
“There is nothing more necessary than good intelligence to frustrate a designing enemy, & nothing requires greater pains to obtain.”
–George Washington
F15C
Let me say, I appreciate someone who wants to debate/discuss rather than trade slams.
What I would respond with, altho he didn’t live in a nuclear age, is a quote from ole Ben Franklin: ” Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
I do not mean to dismiss what you reference & I acknowledge that it created a problem for US security at that time. Likewise. the offending media did not make that report w/ the intention of undermining American security.
It occurs to me that the distinction is that in the Soviet Union that sort of security exposure would never have occured, and if it had, it would have been the first & last time.
In the US it did occur and it has not been the last time, not because the press was muffled or eliminated, but because what we are and what we have is far stronger than a Totalitarian State,if we have the courage to believe that.
When a people respond as in the Franklin quote, we move ever closer to the essence of the quote, namely, make the trade off & you get neither.
We are alive and well and free and the Soviet Union is in the “ash can” of history that Kruschev boasted back then would be our fate.
I think the gamble paid off. Regretably, the tenor of this nation today is such, that w/ another 9/11 or worse, there would be no limit to what Americans would give up for security.
The bashing and thrashing of the media, or at least some of the media dubbed callous to America’s cause, is a faltering & frightening step in the direction of Totalitarianism.
That is a fear at least equal to the fear that the media might be inadvertently aiding the enemy.
F15C
Unfortunately, my last post was in response to your 2nd last post. Had i seen the latter, I wouldn’t have wasted my time.
I write it off to simultaneous posting & reading out of sequence. Sorry for the waste of your time.
Wait, wasn’t this thread about American Idol?
In response to the, frankly, fatuous remarks made by “Old Time Religion” [et al] who equate vague descriptions with [potentially] classified details and conclude “no harm no foul” let me give Mr “Religion” an example he may be able to relate to … having “served in Korea” as he claims:
When Churchill gives a speech saying “We will fight them on the beaches” he is not giving away the plans for D-Day … is he?
The answer, my good — if senile — friend is: no he is not.
You know this as well as I do, my fellow American Veteran. Your disingenuous statements above I can only conclude were made to deliberately and dishonestly mischaracterize the situation.
Saying “we will track the international finances of terrorists” is not the same as detailing how and when such tracking took place.
Now, since you know this, and since you can’t publically admit to it, my conclusions are that you are:
1] a liar and a knave, or
2] a senile liar and knave.
Being as I’m in a concilliatory mood so far today, I’ll let you pick.
Mak44. I appreciate your comments. I sincerely do want to discuss, not slam, but as you know it is sometimes difficult to tell who else wants to have that kind of discussion as well.
Unfortunately, I can’t continue with this right now due to work and real life, but I’d like it if the next time we’re both commenting on a thread like this and don’t see eye-to-eye that we can try to have a vigorous, productive, but mutually respectful discussion. I’m sure I can learn something from you.
rwilymz, One of the great many things which has distressed me over the past few years is the pure willingness, nay, righteousness, of so many of my fellow conservatives to “swiftboat” veterans. Something which you seem all to willing to do with me, a man you’ve not met, nor know very much about, save for the words I’ve placed on this website.
For that rash judgement, you sir are most obviously not a man of honor. For, if you disagree with someone, does that give you the right to question their life because it does not fit into your views?
It disgusts me more and more every single day.
I’m old and too settled in my ways to care what someone such as you cares about me, whether you question my life and my experiences and my beleifs.
I simply do not care what you think. Simple as that.
You obviously think that by impuning my life as a conservative and as a weteran that you thus somehow make my points less important.
For that, sir, you are a man without honor.
That is the only way I can put it without rushing into words I will regret.
?Saying “we will track the international finances of terrorists” is not the same as detailing how and when such tracking took place.”
Of course not. But, if it is stated repeatedly in speech after speech by the President of the United States, it thus goes ot follow, common sense really, that one, say a terrorist, would thus understand that “the details” -SWIFT being only one – would therefore be of import.
Your logic is simplistic and infantile. You presume that the terrorists are idiots (projecting?) and can not make logical assumptions based upon available information.
It goes to reason that if the President is announcing this from the hillops for three years that it was a message to those very terrorists. It also goes to reason that is that information is out there, that the terrorists will responsd to it in some fashion.
It also goes to reason that if the terrorists are responding to that knowledge that they will become aware of the workings of the financial network, if they are not already, including SWIFT and the other two dozen wervies used worldwise.
Your logic is just absolutely idiotic.
I love how Fwilymz falls right into good ol right wing form: attack the messengers sanity and integrity. don’t discuss anything that is said.
Bravo! Take a bow fool!
“If indeed the existence of the financial monitoring program was well known, then there was no point in the New York Times’ release of the information, was there? There was no scoop. So, why would a star reporter waste his time on it?”
The story wasn’t the existence of the program, or of the monitoring. The story was how, once again, the administration has made an end run around oversight.
The article had 2 purposes:
(1) It disclosed that the Bush administration obtains these records by administrative subpoena and therefore with no Congressional or judicial oversight; and
(2) It highlighted for its readers the fact that the Bush administration implemented this program in the aftermath of September 11 and then never bothered to have Congress provide any legislative authority or mandate any oversight framework for the intelligence-gathering program.
As was true with the December 16 NSA story, what the Times disclosed was the lack of oversight and safeguards in our intelligence-gathering operations – thereby prompting important public debate on those matters — but not any non-public operations details that could help The Terrorists evade detection.
Yeah, the Times didn’t reveal anything that might harm the program.
Well, provided one ignores the comments of the head of the 9/11 Commission and all.
I wonder where the courage was when a few cartoons caused riots? The NY Times will only publish info that will make sure terrorists kill Americans alone.
-=Mike
Old Time Religion said:
Lee, my mother had her 96th birthday last April. She is as sharp and sentient as she always was… Thank the Lord. I grew up in a proud GOP household. Two years ago November I voted with my mother in her 19th consecutive election for President of the United States. Every single one of her votes was for the GOP candidate. All of them. (I must admit I voted for Truman in my very first election. He was the President in my eyes. He should remain so.)
Two months ago my mother was watching Bush speak on the television after a meal together. My wife was cleaning up and my mom looked at me and said: “I’ve only regreted voting for two Presidents. Hoover… and Bush. He’s not right in the head.”
Now, let’s see…OTR’s mother was 96 last April. That means she was born in 1910. And in 2004 she voted in her 19th consecutive presidential election. Which means that the first one must have been the one in 1928. When she was eighteen. Or three years short of what was then the minimum voting age of 21. Which means that either OTR’s mother committed vote fraud (I wonder what the statute of limitations is for that) or else OTR is lying through his teeth. Wanna take bets on which it is?
Listen to yourselves. You so-called conservatives are attacking fellow Americans. You are a shameful disgrace to your country. Further, your mean spirited bigotry serves no useful purpose and is exactly the effect that terrorists wish to achieve.
Shut off your computer and study history. Your ignorance is extreme.
Cannon Mouth: The program is legal (“was” legal – it’s effectively dead now), was disclosed to Congress, has been effective in apprehending terrorists (the Bali terrorist, for example), and is most certainly supported by the American public. Where in this does the public’s right to know trump the public’s right to be protected?