Post-Gazette Editorial – 6/30/06

This page was last updated on July 1, 2006.

Press bashing / Americans needed to know story on bank data; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; June 30, 2006.

Surprise, surprise! The PG runs to the defense of exposing national security secrets.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The war on terror is being fought to preserve our freedoms, or so the American people are told. But freedom is not just a feel-good expression -- it has real meaning. In the paranoid post-9/11 era, that truth seems largely to have been forgotten.”

[RWC] “Or so the American people are told?” If that’s not the case, perhaps the PG can enlighten us. Oh wait. That would require more than a drive-by allegation.

“The paranoid post-9/11 era?” The PG wants us to believe Islamic terrorists aren’t trying to kill us?

“Last week, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal had a story the Bush administration did not want published, although it is The New York Times that is now taking most of the heat. Based on information from nearly 20 anonymous current and former government officials and industry executives, The Times’ story described a secret government anti-terrorist effort -- put in place weeks after 9/11 -- to tap ‘financial records from a vast international database.’

“The banking transactions of thousands of Americans have been examined, according to the report, although government officials insist that only those of people suspected of having ties to al-Qaida were looked at. The program is run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department.

“None of this is particularly surprising -- it would be more surprising if the government did not follow the money trail to catch terrorists. Clearly, however, this program is occurring in a questionable area of legal and privacy concerns and these are exaggerated because the program’s scope is huge.”

[RWC] “Questionable area of legal and privacy concerns?” See my critique of the Beaver County Times editorial entitled “On guard.”

“Given that the Bush administration has shown scant respect for the law, both in domestic surveillance and in confining terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay in defiance of the Geneva Conventions, this is an important news story that should be of interest to every American who cares about how the government behaves.”

[RWC] Unless you can’t read, it’s clear the Geneva Conventions don’t cover the illegal enemy combatants held at Club Gitmo.

Perhaps the editorial author should read Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions more closely himself.¹ To qualify for POW status, enemy fighters must meet specific requirements; not everyone qualifies. For example, the fighter must be fighting for a country that is a party to the war and that signed the Conventions. That’s not true for any of the terrorists fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, et cetera. Legal combatants must also meet other requirements, such as wearing ‘a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" (like a uniform) and ‘carrying arms openly’ among others. If you don’t meet all of the relevant requirements, you don't qualify for POW treatment.

“Yet because it revealed classified information, the administration and its supporters see this story as something akin to treason. This is consistent with their view that the war on terror should pre-empt all debate and the messenger must always be blamed when the American people are told about dubious policies. On Monday, President Bush said, ‘The disclosure of this program is disgraceful’ and added that the disclosure of the program ‘makes it harder to win this war on terror.’”

[RWC] If intentionally disclosing classified information beneficial to the enemy during time of war isn’t treason, what is?

If you want a display of hypocrisy, consider how the PG treats this real disclosure of a national security secret compared to non-leaks. Please read my critiques of “Above the law” and “Dump Rove.” This is the kind of trouble people get themselves into when they base their positions on political partisanship instead of core principles.

“That offends common sense. In this case, it wasn’t a battle plan or details of an invasion revealed but a policy that any terrorist is likely to have assumed was going on anyway.”

[RWC] Actually, this editorial “offends common sense.” Of course the disclosed information was a “battle plan.” The fact that the battle is/was occurring in the financial world doesn’t make it any less of a battle or any less critical. After all, don’t all of the PG’s allies tell us we can’t win the war militarily?

“Any terrorist is likely to have assumed was going on anyway?” Since that’s true for almost any tactic, why not publicize all of our national security secrets and stop those programs? Since our enemy knows we’ll use bullets and thus must be impervious to them, should we stop arming our soldiers with M-16s, pistols, et cetera?

Listen, our enemies are neither the dumbest nor the smartest people in the world, and everyone gets complacent over time. Let’s assume our enemies know we’re trying to track their financial movements and try to be careful. There’s no guarantee all of these terrorists are geniuses and know all the ways we could track their movements. If they didn’t know about this method, they do now. If they did know but may have become complacent, they won’t now.

During World War II there was an admonition, “Loose lips sink ships.” In case the meaning isn’t clear, it meant the enemy could benefit from careless talk. What’s more careless than publishing our national security secrets on the front pages of national newspapers?

“The American people must know the nature of government policies if they are to carry on an informed debate. Mr. Bush and his supporters, for all their talk of freedom, have forgotten the duty of a free press as one of the great facilitators of American democracy. The New York Times and the other papers did not break this story rashly, and we think what they revealed is of more use to thoughtful Americans than to their enemies.”

[RWC] Perhaps the American people should have known the Allies cracked German codes during World War II. That way, we could have carried “on an informed debate” about whether it was fair to know what the Germans were doing. Perhaps we should have publicly carried “on an informed debate” about the Normandy Invasion beforehand to determine if the projected loss of life was acceptable.

“If the government is going to get a free pass on its policies because ‘we are at war,’ then the terrorists have scored a victory. Some secrets must be kept, but this was not one of them.”

[RWC] This is incredible arrogance. Are we to understand it is the right of the PG and its pals to determine which “secrets must be kept” and to disclose those deemed unworthy?

Let me reiterate. The New York Times article that disclosed this formerly classified information did not imply the program was illegal or had been used improperly. 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.”

1. Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; United Nations; August 12, 1949.