BCT Editorial – 6/28/06

This page was last updated on July 1, 2006.

On guard; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 28, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Last week, Americans learned the Bush administration has had a secret program that examines banking records of Americans and others as part of its catch-all war-against-terrorism excuse to do anything it wants since Sept. 11, 2001.”

[RWC] “War-against-terrorism excuse?” Does the Times believe terrorists are not at war with us?

Just as it did with the NSA terrorist surveillance program, the BC Times misrepresents this program.

First, the organization providing the data is not a banking firm. It routes international transfers of funds.

Second, the organization providing the data is not even in the U.S. It’s in Belgium.

Third, the only records this organization has are international routing records. It doesn’t have your bank records.

Fourth, the program tracks only transfers by known terrorists and requests for data are made by name. There is no “rummaging” through the data.

“As par for the course, Vice President Dick Cheney attacked the news media for disclosing the operation, which he called legal and ‘absolutely essential’ to fighting terrorism.”

[RWC] The New York Times article that disclosed this formerly classified information did not imply the program was illegal or had been used improperly. Indeed, in a September 2001 editorial, the NY Times lobbied for such a program. Unbeknownst to the NY Times, the program already existed. Why would the NY Times expose a program it believed essential to the war on terror less than five years ago when it didn’t allege illegality or impropriety?

“The program very well may be as important as Cheney contends it is in combating terrorism. However, what this administration fails to understand is that it is the lack of congressional and judicial oversight that has many Americans concerned. This administration believes it is judge, jury and executioner when it comes to doing whatever it wants.”

[RWC] “The program may very well be as important as Cheney contends it is?” The editorial failed to note the NY Times article provided two examples of captures made possible by this program. One person was convicted on terrorism-related charges and the other was an al-Qaida operative believed responsible for the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort.

Regarding congressional oversight, the editorial conveniently failed to note members of Congress from both parties have been briefed on this program since the very beginning.

“As a privacy advocate told The New York Times, ‘Oversight is the difference between something being reasonable and something being an abuse.’”

[RWC] Notice the editorial failed to note the safeguards described in the NY Times article. Treasury Department Undersecretary Stuart Levey described even more safeguards during a TV interview.

“Or, as the first-century (A.D.) Roman satiric poet Juvenal asked, ‘Who will guard the guards themselves?’”

[RWC] I wonder if “Juvenal” should have been spelled “Juvenile?” <g>

“That’s the question the American people and members of Congress should be asking.”

[RWC] The “question the American people and members of Congress should be asking” is, what motivates news outlets like the NY Times and the BC Times to protest absolutely everything the Bush administration does to combat terrorists?

Remember, in disclosing this program, the NY Times didn’t allege any wrongdoing. What was its justification? The executive editor said because the program “is a matter of public interest.” I could be wrong, but I thought tracking down terrorists was also “a matter of public interest.”

Finally, you’ll note there’s no criticism of the government official(s) who leaked a national security secret. I don’t expect the news media to act responsibility, but I do expect people who swear an oath to protect the U.S. to keep the secrets entrusted to them.