Part of why I don’t buy into the notion that the NYT’s is “at war” with the United States or is some sort of security threat the likes of which we haven’t seen since the days of the KGB is that I am unconvinced that they have revealed information that al Qaeda operatives couldn’t have already guessed. The notion that their communications and financial transactions were being monitored almost certainly had already occurred to Osama & Co. Why do you think that the man is living in a cave in the hinterlands of the Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier?
What I find remarkable about the dramatic response to the NYT stories on these topics includes the notion that the critics seem to think that al Qaeda was too stupid to know that they there were active attempts at monitoring their activities before the stories were published, but are also brilliant enough to takes vaguely described programs from newspaper stories and use that information to thwart all efforts at keeping track of their activities. Which is it: are they stupid or mad geniuses?
I think the more likely hypothesis is that the top leaders in al Qaeda have long been aware of likely monitoring and have been trying to avoid detection since 911 and that these stories, at worse, confirm what they already suspected to be the case, and that they have already been trying to avoid.
Further, there is also the fact the more that they are aware that they are being watched, and the more precautions that they have to take, the less effective will be their operation.
There is also the fact that present danger seems to be not as much from globally connected networks of terrorist masterminds than from localized self-radicalized groups like those who perpetrated the London bombing of last year, the Canadian cell that was recently arrested and the Miami group apprehended last week. None of these groups appear to be part of a global network that would have been captured by examination of SWIFT records or even via the NSA wiretap program or the phone records analysis.
Indeed, there are legitimate questions about the degree to which al Qaeda is in way a large cohesive organization, but is rather a very loose confederation of very small cells operating largely independently.
And at the bottom line of it all is the very serious question of unfettered growth of heretofore unknown emergency powers in the hands of the executive. As such, I concur with the much-maligned (at least in some quarters of the blogosphere) Bill Keller of the NYT:
Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government’s actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.
It is the administration’s job to make sure that there are adequate safeguards in place for these programs and that the public is sufficiently assured of those safeguards. If, however, the administration fails at such a task, we expect, in a democracy, that the press, amongst other actors, to step in to make sure that sufficient public scrutiny exists.
The real issue here isn’t the NYT or other papers, nor is it whether or not the US government should have an active anti-terrorism program that includes vigorous intelligence gathering. The question is: do we want an overzealous, even if good intentioned, government collected piles of private data that belong to perfectly innocent individuals in the hopes of finding bad guys? And they do that, do we want them doing on the basis of war/emergency/inherent powers or do we want them doing it with sufficient legal safeguards in place?
Ok, you can rant back at me now, if you like.
Sphere: Related ContentThe views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
You wrote: “If, however, the administration fails at such a task [assuring 'that there are adequate safeguards in place for these programs and that the public is sufficiently assured of those safeguards'], we expect, in a democracy, that the press, amongst other actors, to step in to make sure that sufficient public scrutiny exists.”
So I take it, then, that you think that the program is illegal? Or perhaps you mean that the public has not been assured of its legality? Since Congress (the presumptive representatives of the public) has been briefed on the program, does that then mean that newspapers have the obligation to reveal all secret programs?
I’m not trying to be quarrelsome here, I’m just having trouble getting at your point.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
I am unconvinced that either of the two previously disclosed programs, the NSA wiretap program and the phone records collection program were either legal or had proper congressional oversight. As such, I come at this program with a great deal of skepticism. I am not convinced that the current program has adequate oversight, but do not at the moment think it to be illegal, but then again I don’t know that we know enough to utterly assured of its legality, either.
Given my serious doubts about other actions of the administration along these lines, I am actually glad to see the press getting involved in trying to sort it all out.
And no, I do not think that the administration has done an adequate job of assuring he public that these various programs are being adequately overseen.
And the notion that some members of congress have been briefed isn’t the same as their being adequate oversight. I hold the Congress responsible for not being assertive enough in these areas as well.
And, btw, a progam can be legal, but still inadequately overseen–I don’t see the two are being the same thing.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Thank God for the NY Times because their reporting has kept us safe from the unjust war Bush has initiated against the freedom fighters in the Middle East because you know that the NY Times has the American public’s safety at heart, B.S. Also, please tell me how you assure the public about a secret program?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDVhYWQzMmQ3YWRlNzFkYjRmZmY4ZTQzZmUwZjJhZjI=
June 26th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
So, if I understand you, you are saying that regardless of the legality or illegality of a program, the press has an obligation to reveal any secret program for which it thinks Congress is not exercising sufficient oversight?
June 26th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t be concerned about the executive branch asserting powers out of thin air? I think this is the fundamental issue, as is the question of what kind of safeguards we have in our government.
This trumps the press revelation question, I think.
The degree to which this program must be secret to work is unclear to me, to be honest.
Further, it isn’t as if the federal government hasn’t already advertised that it is digging into the financial dealings of terrorist groups.
For example: http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Shutting_Down_Terrorist_Financial_Networks.html
The discussion here to me isn’t just about this program, but about a series of stories that are interrelated and seem to reveal a specific mode of operation within the administration that I find problematic. If it were just this story and this story alone, I might have a different outlook.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
I am not sure how you can claim that the boneheads entrapped by the FBI last week in Miami comprise a “present danger”?
They are a second-rate cult at best.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Ratoe,
All I said was that the likely dangers for the present seem to be coming from groups unconnected to global networks unlikely to be caught by the data gathering techniques in question.
And it doesn’t take much for a couple of boneheads to cause a great deal of havoc–ask the people in Oklahoma City.
S
June 26th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
SWIFT is the only significant system in place for financial transfers between banks and other major brokers and dealers in international settlements, including the Depository Trust Corporation.
There are public documents those who wish to create systems that work with the SWIFT system. See, e.g., http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2001-07-06-c.html
There has been a good deal of discussion by commentators and the administration about our intent to penetrate Al Qaeda funds transfer schemes and about our successes in penetrating such schemes.
Government figures have even discussed our successes in monitoring and blocking transfers, e.g., http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/58818.htm
I don’t mean to criticize the articles in the Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, but what they are describing is not exactly news. What is news is the relative lack of oversight of the program compared to what some people think is an appropriate level of oversight and judicial authority.
The Administration knows all of this.
The existence of the program was public information before the newspapers published their articles. The fact that it uses SWIFT cannot be news to anyone who actually knows about international funds transfers.
The Administration knows this too. The Administration is attacking the newspapers for printing information that was already substantially known. This must then represent a deliberate attempt to whip up the conservative base to hatred and dislike of the Times (in particular) and other newspapers. The only other plausible explanation for the anger that Cheney and Bush are exhibiting is that they themselves were not privy to the same level of detail about the programs as, for example, average people who read the papers have.
June 26th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Taken by itself one might think releasing this information was based on legitimate balanced journalism, but looking at the bigger NYT approach (joke) to anything relating to President Bush and his decisions, one might also consider it just an opportunity for one more bash. Hopefully the NYTimes won’t be a future target as an indirect result of this story, since they are all devout Moslims and oh so gifted mentally.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Thank God for the character of NYT staff. The sort of behavior exhibited in this case and that of the NSA eavesdropping scandal MUST be brought to the attention of the public.
Pz. Bush and his associates should stop to consider that they are setting dangerous precedent, which will come back to haunt us later, when we have a bad Pz. and one with a brain greater that that of a blow-fish.
MSR
June 26th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
SO now we have a new standard for revealing a “secret” program. All you need is a illinformed employee and an editor at the NY Times and POOF, a secret program is no longer secret. If the same process Bill Keller used was in place during WWII, we’d all be speaking German now, except on the West Coast where they’d be speaking Japanese.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Confirming a secret program that exists is a danger to this country. The deal that really makes me mad that the NYT did not write the story to show illegal happenings with the program but to just reveal to the whole world about the program and how it works.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:48 am
There are Fourth Amendment issues here and there is the issue of the accumulation of private, non-terrorist data.
The notion that we have been monitoring al Qaeda’s finances is not a secret.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:00 am
I would be curious as to what specifically in the article you think constitutes a serious security breach.
The fact that program was ostensibly “secret” isn’t enough to prove that its disclosure harmed its efficacy.